NPDES Compliance
Inspection Manual
5-
<
33
V
iSk
PRO^°
ro
¦z
UJ
o
T
EPA Publication Number: 305-K-17-001
Interim Revised Version, January 2017
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Disclaimer
This Inspection Manual is an inspection support tool provided by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for use by field personnel conducting inspections under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs. The
statements in this document are intended solely as guidance. The statutory provisions and EPA
regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This Inspection
Manual is not a regulation and, therefore, does not add, eliminate or change any existing
regulatory requirements. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the
discussion in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by
statutes, regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between
the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be
controlling.
This document is not intended, nor can it be relied on, to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law by any party in litigation with the United States. This guidance
may be revised without public notice to reflect changes in EPA policy. Deviations from this
guidance on the part of any duly authorized official, inspector, or agent to follow its contents
shall not be a defense in any enforcement action; nor shall deviation from this guidance
constitute grounds for rendering the evidence obtained thereby inadmissible in a court of law.
The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for their use.
This version of the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual is released as an interim version in
order to allow time for inspectors to use the Manual and provide feedback to EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). OECA is interested in user comments that will
enhance a future final version of the Manual. In addition, as OECA's efforts with states through
E-Enterprise continue, this Interim Revised NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual will inform
development of Smart Tools software and hardware for NPDES inspectors to use in the field.
Please send your comments on this Interim Revised NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual to
OECA at NPDEScompliance@epa.gov by December 31, 2017.
Disclaimer - Page ii
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose and Objectives 3
B. Inspection Types 3
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) 4
Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) 4
Performance Audit Inspection (PAI) 4
Off-Site Desk Audit 4
Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection 5
Toxics Sampling Inspection 5
Diagnostic Inspection 5
Reconnaissance Inspection (Rl) 5
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) 6
Focused Compliance Inspection (FCI) 6
Follow-up Inspection (FUI) 7
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Inspection 7
Significant Industrial User (SIU) Inspection 7
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Inspection 7
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Inspection 8
Stormwater Inspection 8
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Audit 9
Municipal Separate storm Sewer System (MS4) Inspection 9
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Inspection 9
Summary 9
C. Legal Authority for NPDES Inspections 10
Inspection Authority 10
State Program Authority 10
D. Responsibilities of the EPA NPDES Inspector 11
Indian Country Inspections 11
Legal Responsibilities 12
Procedural Responsibilities 12
Inspection Procedures 12
Training and Credentialing Responsibilities 14
Safety Responsibilities 15
Professional Responsibilities 15
Professional Attitude 16
Gifts, Favors, Luncheons 16
Requests for Information 16
Quality Assurance Responsibilities 17
Next Generation Compliance 17
E. References 23
Chapter 2-INSPECTION PROCEDURES 24
A. Pre-lnspection Preparation 26
Contents - Page iii
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Review of Facility Background Information 26
Sources of Facility Background Information 29
Developing an Inspection Plan and/or Checklist 30
Developing a Health and Safety Plan 31
Notifying the Facility 31
Notifying state of Federal Inspection 32
Preparing Equipment and Supplies 32
B. Off-site Surveillance 34
Considerations 34
C. Entry 35
Entry Procedures 35
Problems with Entry or Consent 36
Warrants 38
D. Opening Conference 38
Considerations 38
E. Documentation 41
Inspector's Field Notebook 41
Samples 42
Interviews and Statements 42
Digital Images 44
Video 45
GPS 45
Drawings and Maps 45
Printed Matter 45
Electronic Records 45
Copies of Records 45
General Considerations 47
Confidential Business Information (CBI) 47
F. Closing Conference 50
G. Inspection Report 51
Objective of the NPDES Inspection Report 51
Effectively Communicate and Document Findings in the Inspection Report 52
Elements of a Report 54
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) 55
H. References 56
Chapter 3 - DOCUMENTATION/RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 57
A. Inspection Authority and Objectives 58
Authority and Objectives 58
B. Evaluation Procedures 59
Verification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Evaluation Procedures 59
Compliance Schedule Status Review 62
Contents - Page iv
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
POTW Pretreatment Requirements Review 63
In-depth Investigations 64
C. Verification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Evaluation Checklist 65
Chapter 4-FACILITY SITE REVIEW—Wastewater Treatment plants 69
A. Objectives 70
B. Physical Inspection of the Facility 70
General Conditions in Overall Plant 72
Wastewater Collection System 73
Preliminary Treatment at the Headworks 73
Primary Clarifier 74
Secondary Biological Treatment Units 75
Secondary Clarifier 76
Advanced Physical Treatment Units 76
Disinfection 78
Sludge Handling 79
Polishing Ponds or Tanks 82
Plant Effluent 82
Flow Measurement 82
Chemical Treatment Units 83
Standby Power and Alarms 83
General Housekeeping 83
Production Changes 83
C. Permit Compliance and Operation and Maintenance Evaluation 84
Compliance Evaluation 84
Operation Evaluation 85
Maintenance Evaluation 91
D. References 92
E. Facility Site Review Checklist 94
Chapter 5-SAMPLING 98
A. Evaluation of Permittee Sampling Program and Compliance Sampling 99
Objectives and Requirements 99
Significant Industrial User Monitoring Program 100
Biosolids Monitoring Program 100
Toxicity Testing Program 100
StormWater Program 100
B. Sampling Procedures and Techniques 100
Wastewater Sample Collection Techniques 101
EPA Sample Identification Methods 106
Wastewater Sample Preservation and Holding Time 106
Transfer of Custody and Shipment of Samples 107
Quality Control 108
Contents - Page v
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Quality Assurance Project Plan 112
Data Handling and Reporting 113
C. References 113
D. Permittee Sampling Inspection Checklist 115
Chapter 6 - FLOW MEASUREMENT 117
A. Evaluation of Permittee's Flow Measurement 118
Objective and Requirements 118
Evaluation of Facility Installed Flow Devices and Data 118
Evaluation of Permittee Data Handling and Reporting 120
Evaluation of Permittee Quality Control 121
B. Flow Measurement Compliance 121
Objectives 121
Flow Measurement System Evaluation 121
Closed Conduit Evaluation Procedures 123
Primary Device Inspection Procedures 123
Secondary Device Inspection Procedures 126
C. References 129
D. Flow Measurement Inspection Checklist 131
Chapter 7 - LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 133
A. Objectives and Requirements 134
B. Sample Handling Procedures 134
Evaluation of Permittee Sample Handling Procedures 134
C. Laboratory Analyses Techniques Evaluation 135
Evaluation of Permittee Laboratory Analytical Procedures 135
Evaluation of Permittee Laboratory Facilities and Equipment 136
D. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 138
Evaluation of the Precision and Accuracy of the Permittee Laboratory 138
Example of Laboratory QA/QC Measures for Microbial Analyses 140
Evaluation of Permittee Data Handling and Reporting 140
Evaluation of Permittee Laboratory Personnel 141
Evaluation of Contract Laboratories 141
Overview of the Discharge Monitoring Report Quality Assurance Program and How
It Relates to the Inspection Program 141
E. References 142
F. Laboratory Quality Assurance Checklist 144
Chapter 8 - TOXICITY 147
A. Objectives 148
B. Requirements of WET Testing 149
Contents - Page vi
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Types of WET Testing 149
WET Test Components 150
Effluent 151
Dilution Water 152
Test System 154
Test Organisms 154
Reference Toxicants 156
Conduct of the Test(s) 157
Recordkeeping and Data Reporting 157
Review Checklist 158
C. Analysis of WET Data 159
D. Toxicity Reduction Evalutions and Toxicity IDentification Evaluations (TRES/TIEs) 168
E. References 170
Chapter 9 - PRETREATMENT 172
A. Review of the General Pretreatment Regulations 173
Development of 40 CFR Part 403 173
Summary and Background 174
Program Development and NPDES Requirements 175
Approval Authority Responsibilities 180
Control Authority Responsibilities 180
Industry Responsibilities 182
B. Pretreatment Compliance Inspections and OTHER COMPLIANCE EVALAUTION ACTIVITIES.. 189
Scope of PCIs and Audits 189
PCI Checklist Components and Inspection Report 191
Pretreatment Audit Checklist Components 192
C. References 193
Chapter 10-SEWAGE SLUDGE (BIOSOLIDS) 196
A. Review of the Sewage Sludge Regulations (Biosolids) 198
Land Application Requirements (40 CFR Part 503, Subpart B) 200
Surface Disposal Requirements (40 CFR Part 503, Subpart C) 203
Incineration Requirements (Subpart E) 204
B. Sludge (Biosolids) Inspection Procedures 209
Scope of Inspection Activities 209
Inspection Preparation 210
Records Review 211
Facility Site Review 214
Sampling and Laboratory Quality Assurance (QA) 216
C. References 229
Chapter 11 - STORM WATER 234
Contents - Page vii
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
A. Background and History 236
Regulation Overview (40 CFR 122.26) 236
B. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (Not Including Construction) 241
Applicability (Who is Covered) 241
Permit Applications for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity 244
Monitoring (including Self-Inspections) 249
C. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 254
Applicability (Who is Covered) 254
Permit Applications for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction
Activity 256
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements 258
SWPPP Implementation/In the Field 264
D. Stormwater Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 266
Applicability (Who is Covered) 266
Permit Applications for Stormwater Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems 267
Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Development 269
SWMP Implementation/In the Field 273
E. References 274
Chapter 12 - COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 281
A. Background and History of the CSO Policy 282
B. CSO Inspection Procedures 285
Preparation 285
On-site Records Review 287
Interviews 289
Facility Site Inspection 292
C. References 292
D. CSO Evaluation Checklist 294
Chapter 13 - SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS 296
A. Overview of SSOs 297
B. SSO Inspection Procedures 299
Preparation 299
Records Review 301
Interviews 302
Facility Site Inspection 303
C. References 306
Chapter 14 - INSPECTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CONTROLS 308
A. Introduction 310
Science of Green Infrastructure 310
Contents - Page viii
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Design and Inspection Preparation 311
Considerations on Inspection Timing 312
Types of Green Infrastructure Management Practices 313
B. Infiltration Controls 314
Description 314
Design of Infiltration Controls 316
Inspecting Infiltration Controls 317
Common Infiltration Control Issues 317
C. Permeable Pavement Controls 319
Description 319
Design of Permeable Pavements and Pavers 322
Inspecting Permeable Pavements 322
Common Permeable Pavement Issues 323
D. Rainwater Harvesting Systems 325
Description 325
Design of Rainwater Harvesting Systems 326
Inspecting Rainwater Harvesting Systems 329
Common Rainwater Harvesting Issues 329
E. Green Roofs 331
Description 331
Design of Green Roofs 332
Inspecting Green Roofs 334
Common Green Roof Issues 335
F. References 335
Chapter 15 - CAFO PROGRAM INSPECTIONS 339
A. Overview of NPDES CAFO Program 341
Introduction 341
Background and History of the CAFO Regulations 341
NPDES CAFO Permits 352
Operations Covered by Subpart C—Dairy Cows and Cattle Other than Veal Calves
and by Subpart D—Swine, Poultry and Veal Calves 355
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) 359
Other Technology-Based Limitations that Apply to Discharges from CAFOs 359
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations and Standards 360
Requirements for the Land Application Area of Permitted Large CAFOs 360
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements of NPDES Permits for
CAFOs 365
B. Preparing for the CAFO Or AFO Inspection 371
Selection of Facilities for Inspection 371
Compliance Determination Strategy 372
CAFO Inspector Responsibilities and Preparation Activities 374
CAFO Inspection Plan 386
Contents - Page ix
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
C. The CAFO Inspection—Facility Tour 388
Arrival On-Site 388
Opening Conference 391
Record and On-Site Document Review 393
Facility Tour 394
D. The CAFO Inspection—Records Review and the NMP 411
Unpermitted Large CAFOs 411
Records for Permitted Large CAFOs 414
E. Closing Conference 424
F. After the CAFO or AFO Inspection 425
Communication With The CAFO Operator 426
G. References 428
Chapter 16-VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (VGP) 430
A. Background and Overview 431
Background and History of the VGP 431
VGP Overview 431
B. Permits 434
Authorization under the VGP 434
Discharge Types Specifically Not Authorized By the VGP 435
Technology-Based Effluent Limits and related requirements Applicable to All Vessels 435
Effluent Limits and Related Requirements For Specific Discharge Categories 438
Vessel Class-Specific Requirements 443
Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits 445
C. Permit Inspections and Monitoring 446
Self Inspections and Monitoring 446
Permit Recordkeeping 449
Additional Recordkeeping for vessels Equipped with Ballast Tanks 451
Permit Reporting 452
Vessel Inspection Overview 454
VGP Inspection Procedures 455
D. Safety Hazards 465
Expected Hazards 465
Physical Hazards 465
Thermal Hazards 465
Chemical Hazards 465
Biological Hazards 466
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 466
E. Violations and Examples 466
Common VGP Violations and Examples of Good and Bad Practices 466
Good and Bad Practices 467
F. References 470
Contents - Page x
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Chapter 17 - POLLUTION PREVENTION 472
A. Overview of Pollution Prevention 473
Pollution Prevention Goals 473
Waste Management Hierarchy 473
Pollution Prevention Benefits 475
B. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment Procedures for Industrial Facilities 478
Preparation 479
Interview 480
Facility Site Visit 480
C. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment Procedures For Municipal wastewater
treatment plants 484
D. References 486
E. Checklists 488
Chapter 18 - MULTIMEDIA CONCERNS 495
A. Introduction 496
B. Overview of the Multimedia Approach to Inspections 496
C. Multimedia Concerns at NPDES Facilities and the Multimedia Screening Program 498
Hazardous Waste 498
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Actions Under RCRA/CERCLA 499
Nonhazardous Sludge 499
Air 500
Multimedia Screening 500
D. NPDES Inspectors and Multimedia Inspections 501
Description of a Multimedia Inspection 501
The NPDES Inspector's Role in a Multimedia Inspection 502
E. References 503
Chapter 19 - APPEARING AS A WITNESS 505
A. Introduction 506
B. Pre-Testimony Matters 506
Preparation 506
Legal Etiquette, Appearance, and Demeanor 507
C. Giving Testimony 508
General Considerations 508
Pre-Trial Testimony: Depositions 509
Trial Testimony: Direct Examination 509
Trial Testimony: Cross-Examination 510
D. Special Considerations 511
Technical Testimony 511
Expert Witness 512
Contents - Page xi
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Contents - Page xii
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendices
Appendix A - EPA Order 3500.1, Training and Development for Individuals who lead Compliance
Inspections/Field Investigations 513
Appendix B - EPA Order 3510, EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and Enforcement of
Environmental Statutes 527
Appendix C - EPA Order 1440.2, Health and Safety Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field
Activities 541
Appendix D - EPA's Memorandum on Practices to Follow and Avoid when Requesting
Information 551
Appendix E - Sample CWA Section 308 Information Collection Request Letter (308 Letter) 555
Appendix F - Final Fact Sheet: The Do's and Don'ts of Using U.S. EPA Credentials 562
Appendix G - EPA's Memorandum On Entry Procedures 569
Appendix H - EPA's Policy on the Use of Digital Cameras for Inspections 578
Appendix I - EPA's Memorandum On Deficiency Notice Guidance 596
Appendix J - Inspection Conclusion Data Summary (ICDS) 602
Appendix K - Draft Guidance for Releasing Civil Inspection Reports 604
Appendix L - Sample Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form 606
Appendix M - Example Chain-of-Custody Form 608
Appendix N - Updated Fact Sheet: Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials 610
Appendix O - Supplemental Flow Measurement Information 614
Appendix P - Sludge Inspection Checklists 641
Appendix Q- No Exposure Certification Form 655
Appendix R - NPDES Industrial Storm Water Investigation and Case Development (Industrial) 660
Appendix S - Industrial Source Control BMP Questions 670
Appendix T - Notice of Termination for Stormwater 675
Appendix U -Typical "C" Coefficients 678
Appendix V - Rain Zones of the United States 680
Appendix W - NOAA Rainfall Worksheet 682
Appendix X - NPDES Industrial Storm Water Investigation and Case Development (Construction) 684
Appendix Y - Construction Source Control BMP Questions 698
Appendix Z - Infiltration Control Inspection Form 702
Appendix AA - Permeable Pavements Inspection Form 705
Appendix AB - Rainwater Harvest Inspection Form 708
Appendix AC - Green Roof Inspection Form 711
Appendix AD - Animal Industry Overview 714
Contents - Page xiii
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Contents (Continued)
Appendix AE - Management/Soil Science 740
Appendix AF - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Biosecurity Procedures for Visits to
Livestock and Poultry Facilities 747
Appendix AG - Field and Personal Protective Equipment 758
Appendix AH - Mapping Tool (Region 5) 761
Appendix Al - Sample Permitted CAFO Inspection Checklist 766
Appendix AJ - Regional Inspections Checklists 780
Appendix AK - Growth Stages of Common Field Crops 800
Appendix AL - Inspection Introduction Letter 804
Appendix AM - Sampling Procedures and Equipment 808
Appendix AN - Sample Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 815
Appendix AO - Detailed Review of Nutrient Management Plan Implementation 853
Appendix AP - Inspection Report Template (R7) 870
Appendix AQ- Media-Specific Inspection Components 881
Appendix AR - National Multimedia Screening Inspection Worksheet 908
Contents - Page xiv
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Tables
Table 1-1. NPDES-Related Statutes and Regulations 11
Table 1-2. Inspector's Responsibilities 13
Table 2-1. Inspection Equipment List 33
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions 86
Table 5-1. Compositing Methods 102
Table 5-2. Quality Control Procedures for Field Analysis and Equipment 110
Table 8-1. Recommended Effluent Sampling Strategies for Continuous and Intermittent
Discharges for Flow-Through, Static Renewal, and Static Toxicity Tests3 153
Table 8-2. Summary of TAC per EPA Method 165
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations 184
Table 9-2. Categorical Pretreatment Standards 188
Table 10-1. Records Relevant for Sludge Operations 217
Table 10-2. Operating Records for Specific Unit Processes 218
Table 10-3. Sludge Sampling Points 220
Table 10-4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class A Pathogen Reduction Alternatives3 223
Table 10-5. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class B Pathogen Reduction Alternatives3 225
Table 10-6. Recordkeeping Requirements for Vector Attraction Reduction Sludge Processing
Options 225
Table 10-7. Sludge Handling Process Evaluation 226
Table 10-8. Pollutants Monitored for Land Application, Surface Disposal, and Incineration 229
Table 11-1. Summary of Stormwater Permitting Regulations 238
Table 11-2. Summary of Permit Requirements Under the NPDES Stormwater Program
Regulations 240
Table 11-3. SIC Codes Regulated for Stormwater Discharges 250
Table 11-4. Industrial Categories Associated with Industrial Activity 252
Table 11-5. Examples of Site-Specific Industrial Stormwater Control Measures 253
Table 11-6. Site-Specific Construction Stormwater Control Measures 266
Table 12-1. Nine Minimum CSO Controls 284
Table 12-2. Elements of the Long-Term CSO Control Plan 284
Table 12-3. CSO Records 288
Table 12-4. CSO Interview Questions 290
Table 13-1. Documents to Review 305
Contents - Page xv
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Tables (Continued)
Table 14-1. Sample Design Management Practice Selection Matrix According to Site
Characteristics (Source: Modified from Dorman et al., 2013) 314
Table 15-1. Large CAFOs 345
Table 15-2. Medium CAFOs 347
Table 15-3. Information Required on NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2B 352
Table 15-4. Effluent Limitation Summary 354
Table 15-5. Required Records for Permitted Large CAFOs 366
Table 15-6. Required Records for Permitted Small and Medium CAFOs 368
Table 15-7. Example Inspection Focus for Compliance Determination Strategy Based on
Inspection Type 372
Table 15-8. Minimum Measures and Associated Records Applying to Unpermitted Large CAFOs 412
Table 15-9. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP Minimum
Measures i-v 416
Table 15-10. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP Minimum
Measures vi-viii 421
Table 16-1. Vessel Discharge Descriptions 461
Table 17-1. Useful Facility Information to Conduct a Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Assessment 484
Chapter 1- Page xvi
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. Next Generation Compliance Components 17
Exhibit 1-2. Example ITM Query 20
Exhibit 1-3. Results from Example ITM Query in Exhibit 1-2 20
Exhibit 1-4. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Form 21
Exhibit 1-5. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Sorting Table 22
Exhibit 1-6. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search - Facility View 22
Exhibit 10-1. Sludge Quality Requirements for Land Application Uses 206
Exhibit 10-2. Land Applied Sludge Requirements Based on Level of Treatment Achieved 207
Exhibit 10-3. Sludge Quality Requirements for Surface Disposal 208
Exhibit 17-1. Waste Management Hierarchy 477
Exhibit 17-2. Benefits of Pollution Prevention 477
Exhibit 17-3. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment 483
Contents - Page xvii
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 1 -
INTRODUCTION
Contents
A. Purpose and Objectives 3
B. Inspection Types 3
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) 4
Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) 4
Performance Audit Inspection (PAI) 4
Off-Site Desk Audit 4
Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection 5
Toxics Sampling Inspection 5
Diagnostic Inspection 5
Reconnaissance Inspection (Rl) 5
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) 6
Focused Compliance Inspection (FCI) 6
Follow-up Inspection (FUI) 7
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Inspection 7
Significant Industrial User (SIU) Inspection 7
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Inspection 7
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Inspection 8
Stormwater Inspection 8
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Audit 9
Municipal Separate storm Sewer System (MS4) Inspection 9
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Inspection 9
Summary 9
C. Legal Authority for NPDES Inspections 10
Inspection Authority 10
State Program Authority 10
D. Responsibilities of the EPA NPDES Inspector 11
Indian Country Inspections 11
Legal Responsibilities 12
Procedural Responsibilities 12
Inspection Procedures 12
Training and Credentialing Responsibilities 14
Safety Responsibilities 15
Professional Responsibilities 15
Professional Attitude 16
Gifts, Favors, Luncheons 16
Requests for Information 16
Quality Assurance Responsibilities 17
Next Generation Compliance 17
E. References 23
Chapter 1 - Page 1
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Tables
Table 1-1. NPDES-Related Statutes and Regulations 11
Table 1-2. Inspector's Responsibilities 13
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. Next Generation Compliance Components 17
Exhibit 1-2. Example ITM Query 20
Exhibit 1-3. Results from Example ITM Query in Exhibit 1-2 20
Exhibit 1-4. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Form 21
Exhibit 1-5. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Sorting Table 22
Exhibit 1-6. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search - Facility View 22
Associated Appendices
A. EPA Order 3500.1, Training and Development for Individuals who lead Compliance
Inspections/Field Investigations.
B. EPA Order 3510, EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and Enforcement of Environmental
Statutes.
C. EPA Order 1440.2, Health and Safety Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field Activities.
Chapter 1 - Page 2
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
Compliance monitoring is a cornerstone of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
program to achieve clean water. The primary goal of EPA compliance monitoring efforts, such
as on-site inspections, is to ensure and document whether entities regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and pretreatment programs are
complying with their Clean Water Act (CWA) obligations. EPA's NPDES inspection program
identifies and documents noncompliance, supports authorized state NPDES programs, supports
the enforcement process, monitors compliance with enforcement orders and decrees,
establishes presence in the regulated community, deters noncompliance, supports the
permitting process, and furthers the broad watershed protection and restoration goals of the
NPDES program. The purpose of this guidance is to provide inspectors with an in-depth
knowledge of the NPDES inspection process.
EPA inspects NPDES facilities where we directly implementation the program (e.g., in states
without NPDES program authorization and in Indian country). In addition, EPA sometimes
conducts inspections in states with NPDES program authorization at the request of states to
complement the state's own inspection efforts and to respond to tips or complaints. EPA
regions and states communicate closely throughout the year on inspection planning and
targeting to maintain a strong NPDES compliance monitoring program.
Throughout this Manual, EPA has made every effort to avoid references to or identification of
particular facilities. Any specific examples of noncompliance found in the Manual are offered as
facts with the goal of helping inspectors be well-prepared to conduct thorough inspections that
support the enforcement process. Such examples are not a statement about any one facility's
compliance status or the adequacy of the authorized state's compliance monitoring program.
Routine EPA NPDES compliance inspections should be performed in a manner designed to:
• Determine compliance status with regulations, permit conditions, and other program
requirements.
• Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees.
• Verify the adequacy of sampling and monitoring conducted by the permittee.
Other purposes of compliance inspections include:
• Gathering evidence to support enforcement actions
• Obtaining information that supports the permitting process
• Assessing compliance with orders or consent decrees
B. INSPECTION TYPES
This manual provides guidance applicable to each type of inspection an NPDES inspector may
be required to conduct at an NPDES permitted facility or an unpermitted facility with
discharges. Specifically, this manual provides information and references on the components
Chapter 1 - Page 3
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
necessary to complete the various types of NPDES inspections. Many of the chapters also
include checklists. An inspector should not rely solely on the checklist, but use it as one of the
tools when conducting an inspection and evaluating compliance. The different types of
inspections are described below.
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION (CEI)
The CEI is a non-sampling inspection designed to verify permittee compliance with applicable
permit self-monitoring requirements, effluent limits, effluent toxicity, and compliance
schedules. Inspectors should review records, make visual observations, and evaluate treatment
facilities, laboratories, effluents, and receiving waters. During the CEI, the inspector must
examine both chemical and biological self-monitoring, which form the basis for all other
inspection types except the Reconnaissance Inspection.
COMPLIANCE SAMPLING INSPECTION (CSI)
The CSI is a sampling inspection designed with the same objectives as a CEI. The inspector
conducts the same tasks for a CSI as for a CEI, with the additional task of taking and analyzing
representative samples. Inspectors can then verify the accuracy of the permittee's
self-monitoring program and reports through chemical and/or bacteriological analysis,
determine compliance with discharge limitations and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) permit
requirements, determine the quantity and quality of effluents, and provide evidence for
enforcement proceedings where appropriate.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT INSPECTION (PAI)
The inspector conducts a PAI to evaluate the permittee's self-monitoring program. As with a
CEI, the PAI verifies the permittee's reported data and compliance through a records check.
However, the PAI provides a more resource-intensive review of the permittee's self-monitoring
program and evaluates the permittee's procedures for sample collection, flow measurement,
chain-of-custody, laboratory analyses, data compilation, reporting, and other areas related to
the self-monitoring program. In a CEI, the inspector makes a cursory visual observation of the
treatment facility, laboratory, effluents, and receiving waters. In a PAI, the inspector observes
the permittee performing the self-monitoring process from sample collection and flow
measurement through laboratory analyses, data workup, and reporting. The PAI does not
include the collection of samples by the inspector. However, the inspector may require the
permittee to analyze performance samples for laboratory evaluation purposes.
OFF-SITE DESK AUDIT
An Off-site Desk Audit is a comprehensive off-site compliance evaluation of information, data,
records, and facility reports to make a facility-level or program-level (for pretreatment and
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) compliance determination. Routine off-site
compliance monitoring activities, such as reviewing self-monitoring reports or records of phone
calls with the facility, are not enough to be considered an off-site desk audit. An Off-site Desk
Audit may include review of agency-gathered testing, sampling and ambient monitoring data,
responses to CWA section 308 requests, compliance deliverables submitted pursuant to
permits or enforcement orders, remote sensing, aerial or satellite images, Discharge Monitoring
Chapter 1 - Page 4
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Reports (DMRs), annual reports, conversations with facilities, and tips and complaints. In
conducting an Off-site Desk Audit, regions and states may utilize video conferencing with
facility personnel to gather additional information as they conduct their evaluation. For
example, video conferencing could enable the auditor to join facility personnel on a virtual
walking tour of all or part of the facility. The Off-site Desk Audit must be performed by an
authorized inspector (consistent with appropriate federal, state, or tribal authority) or other
credible regulator (i.e., an individual designated by the EPA or state/local/tribal agency with
sufficient knowledge, training, or experience to assess compliance). This individual should select
the candidate for the Off-site Desk Audit based on personal knowledge of the facility, in
conjunction with information from DMRs, other reports, and prior on-site inspections, and have
adequate information about the facility's activities to make a compliance determination.
COMPLIANCE BIOMONITORING INSPECTION
This inspection includes the same objectives and tasks as a CSI. A Compliance Biomonitoring
Inspection reviews a permittee's toxicity bioassay techniques and records maintenance to
evaluate compliance with the biomonitoring terms of the NPDES permit and to determine
whether the permittee's effluent is toxic. The Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection also
includes the collection of effluent samples by the inspector to conduct acute and chronic
toxicity testing to evaluate the biological effect of a permittee's effluent discharge(s) on test
organisms. Each state should be able to conduct biomonitoring inspections, have a designated
contractor to conduct inspections, or have an equivalent program to independently verify a
discharger's compliance with Whole Effluent Toxicity permit requirements.
TOXICS SAMPLING INSPECTION
A Toxics Sampling Inspection has the same objectives as a conventional CSI. However, it
emphasizes toxic substances regulated by the NPDES permit. The Toxics Sampling Inspection
covers priority pollutants other than heavy metals, phenols, and cyanide, which are typically
included in a CSI (if regulated by the NPDES permit). A Toxics Sampling Inspection uses more
resources than a CSI because sophisticated techniques are required to sample and analyze toxic
pollutants. A Toxics Sampling Inspection may also evaluate raw materials, process operations,
and treatment facilities to identify toxic substances requiring controls.
DIAGNOSTIC INSPECTION
The Diagnostic Inspection primarily focuses on Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that
have not achieved permit compliance. POTWs that are having difficulty diagnosing their
problems are targeted. The purposes of the Diagnostic Inspection are to identify the causes of
noncompliance, suggest immediate remedies that will help the POTW achieve compliance, and
support current or future enforcement action.
RECONNAISSANCE INSPECTION (RI)
The RI is an on-site inspection that can be conducted with or without sampling and is used to
obtain a preliminary overview of a permittee's compliance program. The inspector performs a
brief visual inspection of the permittee's treatment facility, effluents, and receiving waters. The
RI uses the inspector's experience and judgment to quickly summarize any potential compliance
Chapter 1 - Page 5
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
problems. The objective of the Rl is to expand inspection coverage without increasing
inspection resources. The Rl is the briefest and least resource intensive of all NPDES
inspections.
PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE INSPECTION (PCI)
The PCI evaluates the POTW's implementation of its approved pretreatment program. It
includes a review of the POTW's records on monitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities
for its industrial users (lUs). The PCI may be supplemented with IU inspections. An IU inspection
is an inspection of any IU that discharges to the POTW.
While conducting a PCI, the region or state should ensure that the POTW is following its
Enforcement Response Plan when the POTW identifies IU noncompliance. The PCI should
include an appropriate number of IU inspections or site visits to evaluate the control authority
oversight procedures and to assess accurate application of categorical pretreatment standards.
The PCI can include IU sampling, depending on the reason for the inspection. For example,
samples may be collected and analyzed to verify the industrial user's self-monitoring program.
Inspectors may prefer to conduct the PCI concurrently with an NPDES inspection of the POTW.
For additional information on the steps involved in conducting a PCI, see EPA's Guidance for
Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (EPA, 1991), available at
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=50000629.txt.
Noted that a related type of review procedure, the pretreatment audit, is also performed by
Approval Authorities. The pretreatment audit is not covered in depth in this manual because it
is a program management tool, not an NPDES compliance inspection. The Pretreatment Audit is
defined and discussed in the Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions
(EPA, 2010), available at
https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/final_pca_checklist_and_instructions_%20feb2010.pdf.
FOCUSED COMPLIANCE INSPECTION (FCI)
The FCI is an on-site inspection that evaluates compliance for one or more specific portions of a
facility (e.g., specific operation or process stream), permit or program (e.g., a pretreatment
control authority's oversight of industrial users) to make a compliance determination. A fact-
driven analysis determines whether a comprehensive inspection or an FCI is appropriate for the
particular facility. Some industries that typically require full process-based inspections may not
qualify for an FCI. The scope of an FCI should be informed by the facility's compliance history,
information about recent changes in the facility's operation, and other data that indicates a
portion of the program or facility that is more likely to have associated compliance issues.
An FCI is more detailed than an Rl, but not as comprehensive as a CEI, CSI, Dl, or PCI. Although
the scope of an FCI is narrower than a CEI, the level of detail required for the portion of the
facility, permit or program aspect reviewed should be comparable to the level of detail required
for a CEI. An Rl, which only requires a preliminary overview of a permittee's compliance
program and brief inspection of the facility, does not qualify as an FCI.
Chapter 1 - Page 6
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION (Fill)
The FUI is a resource intensive inspection conducted when a routine inspection or complaint
identifies a compliance problem. For an FUI, the appropriate resources are assembled to deal
effectively with a specific enforcement problem. A Legal Support Inspection (LSI) is a type of
follow-up inspection that is appropriate when an enforcement problem has been identified
during a routine inspection or in response to a complaint. An LSI focuses on a collecting
information that may be used in an enforcement action. Information gathered during the
inspection may be used to determine the appropriate enforcement action.
SEWAGE SLUDGE/BIOSOLIDS INSPECTION
The objective of a Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Inspection is to assess facilities engaged in a
regulated sludge or biosolids activity (see 40 CFR Part 503) to evaluate compliance with
applicable regulatory provisions, including sludge monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting,
treatment operations, sampling and laboratory quality assurance, and use or disposal practices.
Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Inspection are on-site activities that may be conducted in conjunction
with compliance inspections at major and non-major POTWs. The PCI, CEI, and PAI are the most
likely vehicles for evaluating compliance with sludge requirements.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER (SIU) INSPECTION
The SIU Inspection of an indirect discharger is performed where agencies are acting as the
pretreatment control authority pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10 in the absence of a local POTW with
an approved pretreatment program, or where EPA or the state is otherwise performing
oversight. The SIU Inspection is an on-site activity that includes a close review of the indirect
discharge permit and the SlU's compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting since the last
inspection. The pretreatment regulations provide that state and local control authorities must
conduct sampling inspections of all SlUs at least annually to evaluate compliance with
applicable pretreatment standards independent of the lU's self-monitoring reports (see 40 CFR
403.8(f)).
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) INSPECTION
During a CSO inspection, the inspector conducts an on-site inspection in response to
information received regarding a known or suspected overflow event. A CSO inspection
evaluates compliance with the CWA and CSO Policy requirements as written in the NPDES
permit, an enforcement order, a consent decree, or another enforceable document. The
inspector should verify whether the permittee is preventing CSOs during dry weather,
implementing the nine minimum controls, adhering to a schedule for development, submission,
and implementation of a long-term CSO control plan, eliminating or relocating overflows to
sensitive areas, adhering to effluent limitations, implementing a post-construction compliance
monitoring program, and complying with the terms of any consent decrees or enforcement
orders.
Chapter 1 - Page 7
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW (SSO) INSPECTION
During an SSO Inspection, the inspector conducts an on-site inspection in response to
information received regarding a known or suspected overflow event. An SSO Inspection
evaluates compliance with NPDES permit terms and conditions for system design, operation
and maintenance, permit reporting requirements, an enforcement order, a consent decree, or
another enforceable document. The inspector collects information to verify that the permittee
is complying with the NPDES standard permit conditions (duty to mitigate and proper operation
and maintenance) and the required notification procedures. The inspector also determines
whether there have been any additional unpermitted discharges, or discharges from a location
other than the discharge point specified in the permit, to waters of the United States. When
preparing for an SSO Inspection, the inspector should consider Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operation, and
Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (EPA, 2005), available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cmom_guide_for_collection_systems.pdf.
STORMWATER INSPECTION
Stormwater inspections at industrial facilities and construction sites are designed to evaluate
compliance with NPDES permits for stormwater discharge. A stormwater inspection may also
evaluate whether an industrial facility or construction site has obtained NPDES permit coverage
if required. Most NPDES permits for construction sites and industrial facilities require the
development of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to document how
the facility intends to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit, including effluent
limits. During the on-site inspection, the inspector reviews the permit and the measures
described in the SWPPP to evaluate whether the facility is following its plan for complying with
the permit. The inspector also reviews records, such as self-inspection reports, to verify that the
facility is complying with its permit and following the SWPPP, and walks the site to verify that
the SWPPP is accurate and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are in place and functioning
properly.
Construction Stormwater Inspection
Construction site stormwater inspections ensure that regulated facilities have an NPDES permit
for stormwater discharge and all relevant controls are implemented and actions are taken at
construction sites to prevent pollutants and sediment in stormwater from impacting water
quality. The required controls and actions are listed in the permit and typically include required
BMPs, documented self-inspections, BMP maintenance, and prohibitions on specific discharges.
An inspector must also determine the adequacy of stormwater quality control measures.
Industrial Stormwater Inspection
Industrial facility stormwater inspections ensure that the facility has appropriate NPDES
stormwater permit coverage, and that adequate best management practices are utilized at
regulated industrial facilities to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater. In general,
the inspection will focus on areas related to manufacturing, processing, or raw material storage
at an industrial plant. Examples include, but are not limited to, industrial plant yards, material
handling sites, refuse sites, shipping and receiving areas, and manufacturing buildings. These
Chapter 1 - Page 8
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
inspections also include evaluation of other permit requirements, such as documented self-
inspections, visual monitoring, and sampling.
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) AUDIT
An MS4 Audit is used to evaluate overall MS4 stormwater management program
implementation, and identify problems the local government may have in implementing the
program. MS4 Audits involve an on-site visit and comprehensive review of the MS4
owner/operators stormwater management program including the legal authority, procedures,
implementation of procedures, and adequate resources, where applicable, for the following
program elements: (1) structural and source control measures; (2) detection and removal of
illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers; (3) monitoring and controlling
pollutants in stormwater discharges; (4) implementing and maintaining structural and
nonstructural best management practices (BMPs); (5) implementation schedules and
assignment of appropriate individuals; (6) the inspection and enforcement program for covered
industrial facilities and construction sites; and (7) the dry weather screening program. The
auditor should decide whether controls are in place and in good working order, and whether
facilities have schedules for construction of structural control measures.
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) INSPECTION
An MS4 Inspection is an on-site inspection that involves reviewing some, but not all, elements of
the MS4 stormwater management program to evaluate whether the MS4 is implementing an
adequate program in the selected program elements. The program elements would be selected
by the region or a state after review of the MS4 permit and other relevant information. See the
MS4 Audit description for program elements.
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION (CAFO) INSPECTION
The objective of this inspection is to evaluate compliance with applicable regulations and permit
requirements. To evaluate compliance with requirements and regulations, a CAFO inspection
involves review of facility documents and records, such as the facility's permit, nutrient
management plan, animal inventory, and all associated records. The on-site inspection also
includes assessing the structural integrity, maintenance condition, and storage availability of
the facility. For CAFOs that land-apply manure, litter, or process wastewater, the CAFO
inspection will include review of in-field and edge-of-field conservation practices, land
application protocols and all other factors relevant to determining whether the CAFO has non-
agricultural stormwater discharges from land application areas. Where appropriate, CAFO
inspections may include sampling of manure, litter, wastewater, and/or soil. A CAFO inspection
may also require collection of information necessary to establish whether the receiving water
of any CAFO discharge is a water of the United States.
SUMMARY
Compliance personnel should choose the type of inspection to be conducted based on the
compliance status of the facility, the information needed from the facility, the type of facility
involved, data about the quality of the receiving water, etc. The type of inspection selected will
inform what activities will be conducted on-site, such as what additional information the
Chapter 1 - Page 9
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
inspector will gather or verify during the inspection. Where feasible, compliance personnel
should perform background and records reviews prior to going on-site to streamline on-site
activities and to utilize resources more efficiently. Note that some types of NPDES inspections
may encompass several elements from multiple inspection types (e.g., a stormwater inspection
may encompass elements from both a CSI and a PAI).
C, LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR NPDES INSPECTIONS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, as amended by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of
1972 and the Water Quality Act of 1987, gives EPA the authority to regulate the discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA provides broadly defined authority to
establish the NPDES Permit Program, define pollution control technologies, establish effluent
limitations, obtain information through reporting and compliance inspections, and take
enforcement actions (both civil and criminal) when violations of the CWA occur. Table 1-1 lists
applicable NPDES statutes and regulations.
INSPECTION AUTHORITY
Section 301 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants, unless the discharge complies
with, among others, section 402 of the CWA. Under section 402 of the CWA, point source
dischargers of pollutants (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, industries, animal
feedlots, aquatic animal production facilities, and mining operations) must apply for and
receive a permit that sets specific limits and operating conditions to be met by the permittee.
To determine whether a person is complying with the prohibition in section 301 of the CWA,
section 308 authorizes inspections, monitoring, and information gathering. Relevant to this
manual, section 308 of the CWA provides for two types of monitoring:
• Self-monitoring and reporting
• Monitoring by EPA or the state
Accordingly, EPA or authorized states may conduct an inspection, including stormwater,
biosolids, combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, concentrated animal feeding
operations, or pretreatment inspections, to verify compliance with an existing NPDES permit or
to determine if discharges are occurring without authorization.
STATE PROGRAM AUTHORITY
Section 402 of the CWA allows EPA to authorize states to administer the NPDES program,
including permit issuance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. EPA retains its
enforcement authority, even in authorized states. Federal regulations require EPA and
authorized states to enter formal cooperative agreements to ensure timely, accurate
monitoring of compliance with permit conditions, among other things. States may implement
requirements and regulations that are more stringent or broader in scope than those under the
CWA.
Chapter 1 - Page 10
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 1-1. NPDES-Related Statutes and Regulations
Reference
Topic
CWAa Section
40 CFRb Section
Federal NPDES Permit Program
402
122
State Program
510
123
Inspections, Records, and Reports
308
122,123
Technology Standards
304, 306
125
Electronic Reporting of NPDES Information
From NPDES-Regulated Facilities
304
127
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards
307
129
Water Quality Planning and Management
303, 305
130
Water Quality Standards
303
131
Secondary Treatment Regulations
402
133
Sludge Management
405
257, 501, 503
Pretreatment Standards
307, 402
403
Effluent Guidelines
301, 302
405-471
Clean Water Act.
Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2012.
D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EPA NPDES INSPECTOR
The primary role of an NPDES inspector is to gather information that can be used to determine
the reliability of the permittee's self-monitoring data and evaluate compliance with permit
conditions, applicable regulations, and other requirements. The NPDES inspector also plays an
important role in case development and support. To fulfill these roles, inspectors are required
to know and use policies and procedures for effective inspection and evidence collection,
accepted safety practices, and quality assurance standards.
INDIAN COUNTRY INSPECTIONS
Each regional inspector should understand and apply the EPA Policy for the Administration of
Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations (Indian Policy—EPA, 1984a) and their region's
policies and procedures when conducting inspections in Indian country. EPA's Indian Policy is
available at https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-administration-environmental-programs-
indian-reservations-1984-indian-policy. States and tribal governments that conduct inspections
should follow the requirements outlined in EPA's guidance memorandum entitled Guidance for
Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize State/Tribal Governments to Conduct
Inspections on Behalf of EPA (EPA, 2004) available at
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/guidance-issuing-federal-epa-inspector-credentials-
authorize-employees-statetribal.
Chapter 1 - Page 11
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Inspectors should research applicable policy and procedures when performing inspections in
Indian country. If a facility is owned or managed by a tribal government or owned and managed
by a private party, EPA generally will notify tribal governments in advance of visiting a
reservation and will inform the tribal government of the results of each inspection. If advance
notice is not possible due to circumstances beyond the control of the EPA inspector or if the
visit involves an unannounced inspection, the tribal government should be contacted as soon as
possible. EPA should address out-of-compliance facilities that are in Indian country (and/or
owned or managed by a tribal government) in a manner consistent with the Indian Policy and
EPA's Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy, (EPA, 2001).
Enforcement guidance is located at https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/transmittal-final-
guidance-enforcement-principles-outlined-1984-indian-policy-january-iy.
Regions should also be familiar with the American Indian Environmental Office's website
www.epa.gov/tribal. EPA Indian program contacts can help identify facilities in Indian country.
Their contact information is located at https://www.epa.gov/tribal/forms/contact-us-about-
environmental-protection-indian-country. Please be aware that while it is often very difficult to
identify these facilities, EPA should still follow the applicable guidance concerning working with
tribes.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Inspectors must conduct all inspection activities within the legal framework established by the
CWA, including:
• Presenting proper credentials
• Properly handling confidential business information (CBI)
Inspectors also must be familiar with the conditions of the specific permit, CWA, and
regulations.
PROCEDURAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Inspectors must be familiar with general inspection procedures and evidence collection
techniques to ensure adequate inspections and to avoid endangering potential legal
proceedings on procedural grounds.
INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Inspectors should observe standard procedures for conducting each inspection element. The
elements of the inspection process listed in Table 1-2 are common to most NPDES compliance
inspections. They are grouped by the major inspection activities:
• Pre-inspection preparation
• Entry
• Opening conference
• Facility inspection
• Closing conference
Chapter 1 - Page 12
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Inspection report
Table 1-2. Inspector's Responsibilities
Pre-inspection preparation—Establish purpose and scope of inspection.
• Review background information and EPA/state records, including permit and permittee compliance
file.
• Develop plan for inspection.
• Prepare documents and equipment, including appropriate safety equipment.
• Coordinate schedule with laboratory if samples are to be collected.
• Coordinate schedule with other appropriate regulatory authorities.
• Contact party responsible for sample transportation for packing/shipping requirements.
• Ensure state/tribe is notified of pending inspection.
Entry—Establish legal entry to facility.
• Identify self and present official credentials to the responsible official.
• If denied entry, call your supervisor/Office of Regional Counsel.
Opening conference—Orient facility officials to inspection plan.
• Discuss inspection objectives and scope.
• Establish working relationship with facility officials.
Facility inspection—Document compliance/noncompliance with permit conditions; collect evidence
including photographs and copies of records.
• Conduct visual inspection of facility.
• Review facility records.
• Inspect monitoring location, equipment, and operations.
• Collect samples, if appropriate.
• Review laboratory records for QA/QC and use of approved methods.
• For on-site analysis, review laboratory procedures to verify analytical methodology and use of
approved methods.
• Document inspection activities.
Closing conference—Conclude inspection.
• Collect additional or missing information.
• Clarify questions with facility officials.
• Prepare necessary receipts.
• Review inspection findings and inform officials of follow-up procedures.
• Issue deficiency notice, if appropriate.
Inspection report—Organize inspection findings in a report with field notes, copies of records,
photographs, and other relevant information.
• Prepare narrative report, checklists, and documentary information as appropriate.
• Enter appropriate data into ICIS, including inspection type data that may be collected on the 3560
Report Form.
• Sign and date the report.
Evidence Collection
Inspectors must be familiar with general evidence gathering techniques. Because the
government's case in a civil, criminal, or administrative enforcement action depends on the
evidence gathered, inspectors must keep detailed records of each inspection. These notes and
Chapter 1 - Page 13
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
documentation will be used for preparing the inspection report, determining the appropriate
enforcement response, and giving testimony in an enforcement case.
Inspectors must know how to:
• Substantiate facts with items of evidence, including samples, photographs, document
copies, statements from witnesses, and personal observations.
• Evaluate what evidence should be collected (routine inspections).
• Follow chain-of-custody procedures.
• Collect and preserve evidence consistent with Chapter 5, "Sampling."
• Write clear, objective, and informative inspection reports.
Inspection procedures are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this manual.
TRAINING AND CREDENTIALING RESPONSIBILITIES
Training and credential requirements for inspectors are provided in EPA Order 3500.1, Training
Requirements for EPA Personnel Who Are Authorized to Conduct Civil Compliance
Inspections/Field Investigations (Appendix A) and EPA Order 3510, EPA Federal Credentials for
Inspections and Enforcement of Environmental Statutes (Appendix B). To obtain and maintain
inspector credentials, inspectors and their first-line supervisors must certify that the inspector
has completed all required training and maintain copies of all required training documentation.
Training
EPA Order 3500.1 establishes consistent EPA-wide training and development programs for
employees to conduct environmental compliance inspections/field investigations to ensure that
they have working knowledge of regulatory requirements, inspection methodology, and health
and safety measures. Those who conduct environmental compliance inspections/field
investigations must be properly trained to perform these functions in a legally and technically
sound manner. Training required by the Order consists of two parts: Basic Inspector Curriculum
and Program-Specific Curriculum (Appendix A). In addition, annual refresher training is
required. Inspectors must also complete the required Occupational Health and Safety
Curriculum per EPA Order 1440.2 (Appendix C).
Inspector training courses will also be available to federal, state, local, and tribal environmental
enforcement personnel, including contractor employees and Senior Environmental Employee
enrollees.
Credentialing
EPA Order 3510 addresses roles and responsibilities to issue and manage inspector credentials
and letters of authorization, which are provided to employees of EPA, states, tribes, territories,
contractors, grantees (e.g., Senior Environmental Employment Program Enrollees (SEE)), and
employees of other federal agencies who are authorized by EPA to conduct inspections or
investigations and take samples on EPA's behalf. The order states that credentials are issued to
qualified individuals who have met the minimum inspector training requirements outlined in
EPA Order 3500.1, health and safety requirements outlined in EPA Order 1440.2, and any
Chapter 1 - Page 14
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
subsequent Orders or Guidelines addressing health and safety requirements. Employee
credential holders are responsible for:
• Complying with internal policies for training and background investigation.
• Using credentials only for authorized, official duties.
• Safeguarding their credentials.
• Returning credentials to the Program or Regional Office when they expire or when no
longer responsible for conducting EPA inspections.
• Adhering to applicable EPA CBI regulations and program-specific CBI requirements.
• Completing annual refresher training, keeping records of training completion dates, and
providing the information to first-line supervisors as required.
SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES
The inspection of wastewater and other environmental pollution control facilities always poses
a certain degree of health and safety risk. To avoid unnecessary risks, the inspector should be
familiar with all safety obligations and practices. The safety equipment and procedures required
for an inspector will be based on either standard safety procedures or the site-specific
information from the facility. Inspectors should do the following:
• Use safety equipment in accordance with available guidance and labeling instructions.
• Maintain safety equipment in good condition and proper working order.
• Dress appropriately for the activity and wear appropriate protective clothing. For
example, appropriate protective gloves should be worn during sample collection to
protect the inspector and to prevent the potential for sample contamination. Disposable
gloves are preferred to assure that no cross contamination occurs between sampling
points.
• Use any safety equipment customary in the establishment being inspected (e.g., hard
hat or safety glasses).
• Never enter confined spaces unless properly trained, equipped, and permitted (if
applicable).
For any safety-related questions not covered in this manual, the inspector should comply with
the facility's current approved safety requirements for greater detail if one is available. An
inspector should look at Appendix C to locate EPA's Order 1440.2, Health and Safety
Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field Activities.
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Inspectors are expected to perform their duties with the highest degree of professionalism.
Procedures and requirements ensuring ethical actions have been established through many
years of government inspection experience. The procedures and standards of conduct listed
below have evolved for the protection of the individual and EPA, as well as industry.
Chapter 1 - Page 15
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• All inspections are to be conducted within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and
with due regard for individual rights regardless of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
• EPA inspectors are to conduct themselves at all times in accordance with the regulations
prescribing employee responsibilities and conduct.
• The facts of an inspection must be noted and reported completely, accurately, and
objectively.
• During an inspection, any act or failure to act motivated by private gain is illegal. Actions
that could be construed as such should be scrupulously avoided.
• A continuing effort should be made to improve professional knowledge and technical
skill in the inspection field.
PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE
The inspector is a representative of EPA and is often the initial or only contact between EPA and
the permittees. In dealing with facility representatives and employees, inspectors must be
professional, tactful, courteous, and diplomatic. A firm but responsive attitude will encourage
cooperation and initiate good working relations. Inspectors should always speak respectfully of
any product, manufacturer, or person.
GIFTS, FAVORS, LUNCHEONS
Inspectors may not accept favors, benefits, or job offers under circumstances that might be
construed as influencing the performance of governmental duties. It is prudent to avoid even
the appearance of compromising federal ethics statutes and regulations. If offered a bribe, the
inspector must not accept money or goods. Since this act may violate federal laws, regulations
and may also violate criminal statute, report the incident in detail as soon as possible to a
supervisor and the Deputy Ethics Officials. If it appears that a federal criminal statute was
violated, report this right away to the EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG information is
at https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/forms/contact-office-inspector-general).
The EPA website on ethics contains extensive information on conflicts of interest, gifts, and
luncheons. It is recommended that each inspector go to the Resource Library section and
review information in the Conflict of Interest, Gifts, and Travel sections.
Note also that it is prudent for EPA inspectors to decline business luncheons while on EPA
business. The inspector must pay his/her own fees for meals. When in doubt about a possible
issue, contact a Deputy Ethics Official to clarify what can and cannot be accepted and report
any possible infraction of the ethics statutes and rules. See page 20, U.S. EPA Guidance on
Ethics and Conflict of Interest (EPA, 1984b) and 5 CFR Part 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct
for Employees of the Executive Branch, January 1, 2013.
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
EPA seeks to make information concerning EPA and its work freely and equally available to all
interested individuals, groups, and organizations. In fact, EPA employees have both a legal and
traditional responsibility for making useful educational and safety information available to the
Chapter 1 - Page 16
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
public. This policy, however, does not extend to information about a suspected violation,
evidence of possible misconduct, confidential business information, or other information
protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure of information is
discussed further in Chapter 2, under the "Confidential Information" section.
QUALITY ASSURANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
The inspector must assume primary responsibility for ensuring the quality and accuracy of the
compliance inspection and the integrity of samples collected. While other organizational
elements play an important role in quality assurance, it is the inspector who must ensure that
all data introduced into an inspection file are complete, accurate, and representative of existing
conditions. To help the inspector meet this responsibility, Regional Offices have established
quality assurance plans that identify individual responsibilities and document detailed
procedures, to be used during sampling inspections.
The objective of a quality assurance plan is to establish standards that will guarantee that
inspection and analytical data meet the requirements of all users. Many elements of quality
assurance plans are incorporated directly into the basic inspection procedures and may not be
specifically identified as quality assurance techniques.
The inspector must be aware that following established inspection procedures is critical to the
inspection program. These procedures have been developed to reflect the following quality
assurance elements:
• Valid data collection
• Approved standard methods
• Control of service, equipment, and supplies
• Standard data handling and reporting
NEXT GENERATION COMPLIANCE
Today's pollution challenges require a modern
approach to compliance, taking advantage of
new tools and approaches while strengthening
vigorous enforcement of environmental laws.
Next Generation Compliance is EPA's
integrated strategy to do that, designed to
bring together the best thinking from inside
and outside EPA.
Next Generation Compliance consists of five
interconnected components (see Exhibit 1-1),
each designed to improve the effectiveness of
the compliance program:
Regulation and
Permit Design
Innovative
Enforcement
Advanced
Monitoring
Transparency
Electronic
Reporting
Exhibit 1-1. Next Generation Compliance
Chapter 1 - Page 17
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Design regulations and permits that are easier to implement, with a goal of improved
compliance and environmental outcomes.
• Use and promote advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology so that regulated
entities, the government, and the public can more easily see pollutant discharges,
environmental conditions, and noncompliance.
• Shift toward electronic reporting to help make environmental reporting more accurate,
complete, and efficient while helping EPA and co-regulators better manage information,
improve effectiveness and transparency.
• Expand transparency by making information more accessible to the public.
• Develop and use innovative enforcement approaches (e.g., data analytics and targeting)
to achieve more widespread compliance.
Electronic Reporting
EPA promulgated the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule ("final rule") to modernize CWA
reporting for municipalities, industries, and other facilities by converting to an electronic data
reporting system (see 80 FR 64064). The final rule requires regulated entities and state and
Federal regulators to use existing, available information technology to electronically report data
required by the NPDES permit program instead of filing written paper reports. The use of
electronic reporting will save time and resources for permittees, states, tribes, territories, and
the U.S. Government while increasing data accuracy, improving compliance, and supporting
EPA's goal of better protecting the nation's waters. This regulation helps provide greater clarity
on who is and who is not in compliance, and enhances transparency by providing a timelier,
more complete, more accurate, and nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES
program.
Several commenters during the rulemaking questioned how the Electronic Reporting Rule will
affect current records retention requirements. Commenters focused on the durational
retention requirements, and sought clarification on electronic reporting requirements in the
event of system failure. The final rule requires that the electronic reporting tool used to receive
electronic submissions comply with the federal Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR) at 40 CFR Part 3. Information that is reported electronically via a CROMERR-
approved reporting tool takes the place of the paper record submission. The final rule changes
the form of the record from paper-based to electronic. Therefore, records retained pursuant to
record retention requirements—regulation-based or permit-based—can be kept in an
electronic format so long as they are compliant with the CROMERR requirements. This rule
does not change how long records need to be retained under existing regulations or as
specified in permits. NPDES inspectors should identify all available electronic records in EPA's
NDPES data system (ICIS-NPDES) such as DMRs or program reports. Inspectors should not
assume that the facility has paper copies of records that were previously submitted to their
authorized NPDES program (e.g., DMRs or program reports).
Chapter 1 - Page 18
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Inspection Targeting
Inspectors will now be able to use a more complete and accurate set of NPDES program data to
better target facilities. EPA's data access tool, Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO), has a number of tools that inspectors can use to refine their inspection lists and focus
on the most important environmental problems.
The ECHO website provides a single place to find up-to-date regulatory compliance and
enforcement data. With integrated compliance and enforcement information for more than
hundreds of thousands of EPA-regulated facilities nationwide, ECHO'S features range from
simple to advanced - catering to concerned citizens seeking information about community
facilities to those who perform detailed analyses and complex searches.
The site offers a set of search and visualization interfaces, models, management support tools,
and reference materials assisting public and government users in accessing and analyzing
information related to compliance and enforcement of environmental laws. A password-
protected government-only area, ECHO Gov, grants select users access to non-public inspection
targeting tools and enforcement-sensitive case information. The next two sections contain
examples that NPDES inspectors might find useful for developing inspection lists or for
preparation for an inspection. For suggestions for improving ECHO or ECHO Gov, please contact
EPA at: https://echo.epa.gov/resources/general-info/contact-us.
Inspection Targeting Model Using ECHO Gov
EPA developed the Inspection Targeting Model (ITM) with the goals of sharpening the focus of
inspections and making the inspection planning process more efficient and data driven. The
purpose of this model is to distinguish between facilities that have strong records of compliance
and those who have records indicating historical compliance problems, with additional data
providing context regarding water quality. Inspectors will need to log into ECHO Gov to access
the ITM (i.e., the ITM is not available to the public).
The ITM scores facilities based on: inspection frequency; violations/SNC status; compliance
schedule; enforcement history; water quality; and facility characteristics. Facility-level scores
and the underlying data are made available via a simpler user interface on ECHO Gov. The ITM
pulls relevant inspection, violation, enforcement, and water quality data, and then applies
weightings to each data point to produce a single-number ranked score. The weighting
algorithm is designed to indicate which facilities appear to be in most need of an inspection.
Exhibit 1-2 shows a screenshot of an example ITM query and Exhibit 1-3 shows a screenshot of
the results of this example query.
Chapter 1 - Page 19
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CWA Inspection Targeting Model Query rcUi\' r<- v* Q, <-
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
report of effluent violations that could be attached as an appendix or supporting material to a
letter or enforcement action.
The new search is meant to be easy to use and includes the following features:
• Intuitive searching.
• Searches can be broad (nationwide) or specific (e.g., watershed-based).
• Searches using facility name (useful for investigations of large companies with multiple
facilities).
• Searches from NPDES, Facility Registry (FRS), and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) will
accept multiple IDs in each text box.
Select Year Range (up to 5 years): Start Year: 2010
~ End Year 2014
~
Location or Watershed
* Nationwide
Search by Location
Zip Code
I =1
EPA Region:
| Select an EPA region ~ |
Search by Watershed
Zip Code
Watershed ID (2-Digit
Id ¦
Find 1 2-digit HUC on a map
Major U.S. Watersheds:
Select a watershed group
Only include facilities that discharge:
-1 to impaired waterbodies
1 pollutants contributing to a waterbody impairment
to counties or watersheds with ESA-listed aquatic
1 All Pollutants
Specify Pollutant
Pollutant Name(s) (or partial name(s))
I I
Separate pollutants with a semicolon (;)
Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS)
(without dashes)
Pollutant Categories
With calculated loadings:
Nitrogen
O Phosphorus
w Organic Enrichment
O Solids
O Metals
O Clean Water Act Priority Pollutants
O CERCLA Hazardous Substances
O TRt Chemicals
O Radionuclides
Without calculated loadings
' Pathogen Indicators
O Temperature
' Wastewater Flow
- ' Genera) Radioactivity
O Color
© Whole Effluent Toxicity
Only include facilities with:
•* Any exceedance ' Only SNC exceedances
Minimum number of exceedances: [ |
Across entire facility
Any single facility o
all
Only include facilties with specific limit exceedances:
Enter a value for ONE of the options below:
Percent over limit (96) >-= [ |
Pounds over limit (lbs) >=
~
Toxic pounds over limit CTWPE) »= [
Limit results based on data quality flags f3.
Include all results
Industry
* All Point Sources
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
Only
Industrial Point Sources (non POTW)
Point Source Category:
All Point Source Categoi
Industrial Sector ID (2-Digit SIC Code)
All SIC Codes
Enter a Industrial Sector ID (4-digit SIC Code):
SIC Code lookup
2-digit NA1CS code:
| All NAfCS Codes
Facility Name:
Separate multiple facility IDs with j
return. LIMIT: 40O
NPDES Permit ID:
FRS ID: |
TRI ID:
Major Minor indica
Select a Major Minor Indicator
Compare DMR to TR! feature is only available on data
through 20 f 3.
Only include facilities that link to TRI ID
Q Clear selection
Exhibit 1-4. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Form
Chapter 1 - Page 21
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Results
Instructions. The table below presents facility-level (and if selected, pollutant-level) information about the facilities that match the selected search criteria. Note that if
a pollutant or pollutant category is selected in the search criteria, the E90 exceedance counts and pollutant loadings will not reflect total facility exceedances.
Columns in the results table are organized into four themes. The Facility Identifiers theme always remains visible, but the other themes may be toggled on and off.
Click on a NPDES ID to access a facility's Effluent Limit Exceedance Exceedances Report. For more information, see Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Results Help.
Search criteria:
Reporting Years 2010 to 2014 and EPA Region: 01 and Pollutant category: Clean Water Act Priority Pollutants and Non-POTWs and All SIC codes and All point source
categories
Loads for the current year are not based on <3 full reporting year because data are not complete.
Displaying: 1 through 42 of 42 facilities.
Show/Hide Columns: Facility Characteristics I* Enforcement and Compliance "< Pollutant Loadings v
i I ==\ ~
Enforcement and Compliance
Pollutant Load
Most Recent
Formal
~
Enforcement
Action
E90
Facility
Total
E90
Max
Outfall '
E90
Trend
E90
2010
E90
2011
E90
2012
E90
2013
E90
2014
Total
Pounds
Total
TWPE
(lb-
eq)
Total Load
Over Limit
(lbs)
Total TWPE
Over limit
(Ib-eq)
*
2010 L
Over Li
02/22/2012
40
40
1.1.
1
17
4
14
4
1.710 f"
1.264
r
75.3
0.75
2.81
11 10,2014
39
39
..II.
4
6
13
12
4
379
99.2
0.58
0.36
0.5 £
Exhibit 1-5. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search Sorting Table
I Htuenl limit txcndinces Report Print
Basic Facility, Permit,
Receiving Waterbody, and
Enforcement Information
>
Effluent Exceedances
Over Time
Effluent Exceedances by
Parameter
Detailed View of Every
Effluent Exceedance (can
span many pages)
Exhibit 1-6. Effluent Limit Exceedances Search - Facility View
Chapter 1 - Page 22
-------
Interim Revised U.S. EPA NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Thus, inspectors can use the results of the Effluent Limit Exceedances Search in ECHO to narrow
down facilities that are potential targets for inspection.
E. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984a). EPA Policy for the Administration of
Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984b). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidance
on Ethics and Conflict of Interest.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986). Pretreatment Compliance Inspection and Audit
Manual for Approval Authorities. EPA 833/B-86-100.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection. EPA 300/R-92-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined
in the 1984 Indian Policy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing
Compliance Assistance During Inspections.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management,
Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems. EPA
305-B-05-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector
Credentials to Authorize State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist
and Instructions. EPA 833-B-10-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Introduction to the National Pretreatment
Program. EPA 833-B-11-001.
Chapter 1 - Page 23
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 2 -
INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Contents
A. Pre-lnspection Preparation 26
Review of Facility Background Information 26
Sources of Facility Background Information 29
Developing an Inspection Plan and/or Checklist 30
Developing a Health and Safety Plan 31
Notifying the Facility 31
Notifying state of Federal Inspection 32
Preparing Equipment and Supplies 32
B. Off-site Surveillance 34
Considerations 34
C. Entry 35
Entry Procedures 35
Problems with Entry or Consent 36
Warrants 38
D. Opening Conference 38
Considerations 38
E. Documentation 41
Inspector's Field Notebook 41
Samples 42
Interviews and Statements 42
Digital Images 44
Video 45
GPS 45
Drawings and Maps 45
Printed Matter 45
Electronic Records 45
Copies of Records 45
General Considerations 47
Confidential Business Information (CBI) 47
F. Closing Conference 50
G. Inspection Report 51
Objective of the NPDES Inspection Report 51
Effectively Communicate and Document Findings in the Inspection Report 52
Elements of a Report 54
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) 55
H. References 56
Chapter 2 - Page 24
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Inspection Equipment List 33
Associated Appendices
D. EPA's Memorandum on Practices to Follow and Avoid When Requesting Information
E. Sample CWA Section 308 Information Collection Request Letter (308 Letter)
F. Final Fact Sheet: The Do's and Don'ts of using U.S. EPA Credentials
G. EPA's Memorandum on Entry Procedures
H. EPA's Policy on the Use of Digital Cameras for Inspections
I. EPA's Memorandum on Deficiency Notice Guidance
J. Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) Form
K. Draft Guidance for Releasing Civil Inspection Reports
Related Websites
EPA's Office of Compliance Inspector website: https://wiki.epa.gov/inspector
Chapter 2 - Page 25
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. PRE-INSPECTION PREPARATION
Pre-planning is necessary to ensure that the inspection is focused and is conducted smoothly
and efficiently. It involves the following activities:
• Reviewing facility background information
• Developing an inspection plan
• Developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for sampling, if applicable
• Notifying the facility, if applicable
• Notifying the state, tribe, or POTW of the federal inspection, if applicable
• Preparing equipment
REVIEW OF FACILITY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Clean Water Act (CWA) and related NPDES regulations establish procedures, controls, and
other requirements applicable to a facility. In addition, state regulations, and local ordinances
may be applicable to the same facility. Therefore, collection and analysis of available
background information on the candidate facility is essential for effective planning and overall
success of a compliance inspection. Materials from available files, company websites, and other
information sources can enable inspectors to familiarize themselves with facility operations,
conduct a timely inspection, minimize inconvenience to the facility by not requesting data
previously provided, conduct a thorough and efficient inspection, clarify technical and legal
issues before entry, and develop a sound and factual inspection report.
Various types of information that may be available for review are listed below. The list is not
intended to be exhaustive and all listed information may not be relevant for all inspections. The
inspector should determine the amount of background information necessary for the
inspection and focus on the characteristics unique to the facility (e.g., design, historical
practices, legal requirements).
General Facility Information
• Maps showing facility location, drainage inlets, wastewater discharge pipes, sampling
points, overflow and bypass points, and geographic features.
• Plant layout and process flow diagram.
• Names, titles, and telephone numbers of responsible facility officials.
• Any special entry requirements (e.g., security).
• Any safety requirements.
• Description of unit operations including design and operating data (e.g., design flow or
capacity, typical operating flows, maintenance requirements), if available.
• Description of wastewater discharges (e.g., outfalls, discharge frequency, flowrate).
• Production levels—past, present, and future.
• Hydrological data.
• Geology/hydro-geology of the area.
Chapter 2 - Page 26
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Changes in facility conditions since previous inspection/permit application.
• Available aerial photographs.
Requirements, Regulations, and Limitations
• Copies of existing permits and permit applications. Permits provide information on the
limitations, requirements, and restrictions applicable to discharges; compliance
schedules; and monitoring, analytical, and reporting requirements. Permit applications
provide technical information on facility size, layout, and location of pollutant sources;
treatment and control practices; contingency plans and emergency procedures; and
pollutant characterization—types, amounts, applicability of effluent guidelines, and
points/locations of discharge. Permit applications for air, solid, and hazardous waste
treatment and disposal permits may provide additional information to the inspector
that is not available elsewhere.
• Notices of intent (NOI), regulations, requirements, and restrictions placed on permittee
discharges, including Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC Plans)
and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs).
• Monitoring and reporting requirements and available monitoring stations.
• Special exemptions and waivers, if any.
• Documents required by SPCC Plans and SWPPPs, including inventories of Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDS), maintenance records, training manuals, and training
documentation.
• Receiving stream water quality standards, the condition of the receiving stream (e.g., is
the stream impaired and for what parameters), and any Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) evaluations for the receiving stream.
• Information concerning sludge, air, solid, and hazardous waste treatment and disposal.
Facility Compliance and Enforcement History
• Previous inspection reports, including local (municipal), state, and federal inspections.
• Correspondence among facility, local, state, and federal agencies.
• Complaints and reports, follow-up studies, findings, and remedial action.
• Documentation on past compliance violations, exceedances, status of requested
regulatory corrective action, if any.
• Enforcement actions such as compliance schedules and consent orders.
• Status of current and pending litigation against facility.
• Self-monitoring data and reports.
• Previous EPA, state, or consultant studies and reports.
• Previous deficiency notices issued to the facility.
• Laboratory capabilities and analytical methods used by the facility.
• Name(s) of contract laboratories, if applicable.
Chapter 2 - Page 27
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• NPDES data including Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) and Quality Assurance (QA)
files.
• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) data submittals.
• Reports from special studies (e.g., stream monitoring, internal audits) or compliance
schedules.
Pollution Control and Treatment Systems
• Description and design data for pollution control or treatment systems (e.g., design flow
or capacity, typical operating flows, maintenance requirements), if available.
• Sources and characterization of discharge.
• Type and amount of wastes discharged.
• Available routes for bypasses or diversions, and spill containment facilities.
• Pollution control units, treatment methods, and monitoring systems.
Pretreatment Information
• Information concerning compliance schedule to install technologies (industrial facilities)
or develop a pretreatment program (Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)).
• Pretreatment reports as required by the NPDES permit and the General Pretreatment
Regulations, regional, state, or local requirements.
• The POTW's Enforcement Response Plan and sewer use ordinance, including local
discharge limits.
• POTW pretreatment procedures (e.g., sampling, inspection compliance evaluation,
SNC).
• POTW annual reports.
• Information concerning industrial discharges to POTWs, such as:
- Industrial monitoring and reporting requirements
- POTW monitoring and inspection program
- Waste contribution to the POTW
- Compliance status of industry with pretreatment requirements
- POTW enforcement initiatives
Chapter 9 of this manual discusses pretreatment program requirements in greater detail.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
• Legal authority
• Program procedures
• Reports to permitting authority
• A list of construction and industrial stormwater facilities within the MS4
Chapter 2 - Page 28
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SOURCES OF FACILITY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Regional and State Files and Websites
EPA Regional Offices and state agencies maintain files that can provide the information listed
below. In addition, many states maintain websites where permits and permit applications may
be available.
• Compliance, enforcement, and litigation history including copies of inspection reports
and citizen complaints and actions taken. Previous inspection reports can provide
general facility information, as well as problems or concerns noted in previous
inspections.
• Facility self-monitoring data.
• Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs).
• DMR QA reports.
• Permits and permit applications including special exemptions and waivers applied for
and granted or denied.
• NOI filings.
• Facility files pursuant to other regulatory programs may also contain useful information
prior to the NPDES inspection. Some of the other regulatory programs and their
reporting requirements include Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reports on PCB
activities; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) biannual reports;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
reportable quantity release reports; EPCRA Section 312 Tier II reports and Section 313
Form R reports; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide
production registrations; and Clean Air Act (CAA) annual emission inventory reports and
permit applications.
• Other correspondence including process operational problems/solutions; pollution
problems/solutions; laboratory capabilities or inabilities; and other proposed or
historical remedial actions. This information can provide design and operation data,
recommendations for process controls, identification of pollutant sources,
treatment/control systems improvement, and remedial measures.
EPA Websites and Information Resources
EPA's website contains several data tools that could be reviewed prior to the inspection:
• DMR Pollutant Loading Tool (http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/)—This site allows users to
determine who is reporting discharges, what pollutants they are discharging and how
much, and where they are discharging. The tool calculates pollutant loadings from
permit and DMR data from EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System for the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES)1.
1 ICIS-NPDES has replaced the Permit Compliance System (PCS).
Chapter 2 - Page 29
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/electronic-notice-
intent-enoi)—This site allows users to view NOIs for construction projects under EPA's
Construction General Permit (CGP) for Low Erosivity Waivers (LEWs) or for industrial
facilities seeking coverage under EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP).
• Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) (https://echo.epa.gov/)— This
public site allows users to search for facility compliance and enforcement information
including permit, inspection, violation, and enforcement actions. ECHO Gov
(https://echo.epa.gov/login) includes additional data that is available only to
government agencies.
Technical Reports, Documents, and References
These information sources provide general information on waste loads and characterization,
industrial process operations, and pertinent specific data on available treatment/control
techniques, such as their advantages or disadvantages and limits of application and pollutant
removal efficiencies. Such sources include Development Documents for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards.
In addition, general websites and mapping programs (e.g., Google Earth, Geographic
Information Systems) can provide an overview of the facility layout, features, and outfalls.
Company Data Sources
Many companies maintain individual web sites that contain valuable information regarding the
company's financial status, significant purchases and sales, new business ventures, etc.
Inspectors may follow Appendix D, EPA's Memorandum on Practices to Follow and Avoid When
Requesting Information, should requesting information be necessary while conducting
background research.
DEVELOPING AN INSPECTION PLAN AND/OR CHECKLIST
Inspection plans and inspection checklists are helpful tools for organizing and conducting
compliance inspections. A plan is recommended to effectively conduct a compliance inspection.
After reviewing the available background information, the inspector prepares a comprehensive
plan to define inspection objectives, tasks and procedures, resources required to fulfill the
objectives, and inspection schedule. When developing an inspection plan, inspectors should
consider the following:
• Objectives
- What is the purpose of the inspection?
- What is to be accomplished?
• Tasks
- What tasks are to be conducted?
- What information must be collected?
- What records will be reviewed?
Chapter 2 - Page 30
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Procedures
- What procedures are to be used?
- Will the inspection require special procedures?
• Resources
- What personnel will be required?
- What equipment will be required?
• Schedule
- What will be the time requirements and order of inspection activities?
- What will be the milestones?
• Coordination
- What coordination with laboratories or other regulatory agencies will be required?
An outline of tentative inspection objectives, meetings to be held, and records that will be
reviewed can be prepared and presented to the facility officials during the opening conference.
In addition, inspectors may prepare a checklist to use during the inspection to ensure potential
compliance issues have been assessed. The checklist content will vary depending on the type of
inspection, but should distill the applicable regulatory and permit requirements into a simple
format allowing the inspector to easily assess and document compliance. Existing checklists
may be used or modified for the inspection.
DEVELOPING A HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
Inspectors must comply with the health and safety training requirements under EPA Order
1440.2 (see Appendix C, ["EPA Order 1440.2, Health and Safety Requirements for Employees
Engaged in Field Activities"). Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that these requirements
are met. Additionally, a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) must be prepared prior to the inspection
or field investigation to determine any health and safety hazards associated with the
inspection. When developing a HASP, inspectors and supervisors should consider factors such
as the site conditions, weather conditions (when applicable), required personal protective
equipment, any personnel medical conditions, and the job functions that will be performed on-
site.
NOTIFYING THE FACILITY
Announced Inspections
EPA conducts both announced and unannounced inspections. When conducting announced
inspections, the facility operator is sometimes notified by a CWA section 308 Information
Collection Request Letter or "308 Letter" that the facility is scheduled for an inspection
(Appendix E is an example of a typical 308 Letter). The signature authority for a 308 Letter may
be delegated to a section chief, but each region should verify the delegation. The 308 Letter
advises the permittee that an inspection is imminent and usually requests information
regarding on-site safety regulations to avoid problems concerning safety equipment at the time
Chapter 2 - Page 31
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
of inspection. This letter many request items such as facility contact names and updated
process information. The 308 Letter may specify the exact date of inspection, if coordination
with the permittee is required. The 308 Letter can also inform the permittee of the right to
assert a claim of confidentiality.
In cases where an inspection will be announced, inspectors should:
• Explain the nature and extent of the inspection.
• Provide a timeframe for the scheduled activities.
• Document any contact with the facility (e.g., phone call, letter, email).
• Request the availability of facility personnel and records/documents during the
inspection.
• Inquire about special safety and security requirements.
• Inform the facility of its right to asset a confidentiality claim
The inspector should also determine whether there are program-specific forms or requirements
that must be completed during the notification process.
Unannounced Inspections
When the facility is not notified in advance, the inspector has an opportunity to observe normal
facility operations, rather than a facility that has been prepared for an inspection. However, the
inspector may miss interviews with unavailable personnel. The inspector may find that
announced inspections are valuable when inspecting large or complex facilities. Decisions on
whether an inspection will be announced or unannounced should be made in consultation with
the inspector's management and, if necessary, counsel. Unannounced inspections are
appropriate if there is concern that the facility may conceal or alter evidence of noncompliance,
or if the inspection team suspects that illegal discharge(s) may be occurring.
NOTIFYING STATE OF FEDERAL INSPECTION
The inspector should notify the appropriate state regulatory agency, tribe, or POTW in a timely
manner of inspections to be conducted in its jurisdiction, if notification is deemed appropriate.
Notification should also be provided at the municipal level for delegated programs. The state
should be notified of all federal inspections unless disclosing inspection information would
jeopardize an unannounced inspection. Applicable agreements and policy should be reviewed
regarding this notification. This responsibility may vary depending on the region.
PREPARING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
The inspector must prepare all equipment and supplies required for the inspection. Safety
equipment and procedures required for a facility are based on the response to the 308 Letter or
standard safety procedures. Safety requirements must be met, not only for safety reasons, but
to ensure that the inspector is not denied entry to the facility or parts of it. If the inspector will
use a checklist, it should be developed or obtained during the pre-inspection preparation.
Chapter 2 - Page 32
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If sampling is to be performed, part of the pre-inspection process may involve preparing
sampling equipment and the development of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). A QAPP
is a tool for planners to document the type and quality of data needed and to describe the
methods for collecting and assessing those data. QAPPs are discussed further in Chapter 5,
Section B of this manual. Sampling requires additional equipment, which may vary according to
the facility inspected and the type of inspection. Table 2-1 includes a list of inspection and field
sampling equipment that may be needed.
All equipment must be checked, calibrated, and tested before use. The inspector also must
ensure that all materials necessary to complete an inspection are taken to the inspection site.
Table 2-1. Inspection Equipment List
Typical Inspection Equipment
Documents and Recordkeeping Tools
•
Credentials
•
Shipping labels
•
Background files
•
Analysis request forms
•
Checklists
•
Waterproof pen
•
Bound, waterproof, chemical-resistant
•
Calculator
logbook
Personal Protective Equipment8
•
Hardhat
•
Coveralls
•
Hearing protection
•
Reflective safety vest (Class III)
•
Safety shoes
•
Safety glasses/goggles
•
Gloves
•
Rainwear
Safety Equipment
•
First-aid kit
•
Respirator
•
Meters (oxygen content, explosivity, and
•
Filter cartridges
toxic gas)
•
Self-contained breathing apparatus (If
•
Safety harness and retrieval system
appropriate)
•
Ventilation equipment
Tools
•
Multi-tooled jack knife (Swiss Army Type)
•
Screwdriver
•
Electrical and duct tape
•
Adjustable wrench and vise grips
•
Tape measure
•
Bucket (plastic or stainless steel, as
•
Handheld range finder and level
appropriate)
•
Extra batteries
•
Nylon cord
•
Extra memory cards for camera, digital
•
GPS
camera, video camera
•
Laptop computer
•
Flashlight
•
Cell phone
Additional Equipment for Sampling
Sampl
•
ng Documentation
Sampling plan
•
Sampling QAPP
Sampling Materials
Chapter 2 - Page 33
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 2-1. Inspection Equipment List
• Automatic samplers
• Tubing
• Sample containers for all potential
analytical methods, including extras
• Sample bottle labels
• Bottle dipper
• Decontamination supplies
• Batteries/extension cords
• Sample bottle labels/sample seals
• Plastic security tape
• Chain-of-custody forms
• Dissolved oxygen meters
• pH meter
• TRC meter
• pH buffer
• Deionized water
• Chart paper
• Thermometer
• Coolers/ice
• Preservatives
Sample Transportation Materials
• Bubble pack material
• Filament tape
Flow Measurement Devices
• Airbill/Bill of Lading
• Measurement devices (e.g., flumes,
weirs, portable ultrasound or bubble
systems)
• Flow discharge tables
• Ruler
• Stopwatch or watch with second hand
• level
a Additional personal protective equipment (PRE) and safety equipment may be required for specific types of
inspections.
b Some of the equipment listed may be used for confined space entry. Only personnel trained in confined space
entry should enter confined spaces.
_ OFF-SFfHSURVHlLi-ANCH
CONSIDERATIONS
Often many potential concerns can be identified prior to entering the facility, such as illegal
discharges, stressed vegetation, spills, smoke, or illegal dumping. Off-site surveillance also
provides an opportunity for the inspector to observe traffic patterns into and out of the facility,
and determine material/product handling procedures in areas such as loading docks or
equipment staging areas. Off-site surveillance also provides the inspector with geographical
coordinate information, which can be used to reference photos, locations, violations, etc., and
allows the inspector to determine the layout of the facility and make judgments about how to
prioritize the inspection.
The inspector should document the following information when conducting off-site
surveillance:
1. Location of the off-site surveillance: Was the off-site surveillance conducted from a
public right-of-way?
2. Facility layout and orientation: A brief sketch of the layout and orientation (as viewed
from the public right-of-way) should be noted.
Chapter 2 - Page 34
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
3. Visible concerns: What are some obvious concerns visible from public right-of-way (e.g.,
containers, loading areas, tanks, obvious discharges, improper disposal)?
_ ENTRY
ENTRY PROCEDURES
Authority
The authority for entry is found in section 308(a)(4)(B) of the CWA, which states:
...the Administrator or his authorized representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator), upon presentation of his
credentials (i) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through any premises in which
an effluent source is located or in which any records are required to be
maintained...and (ii) may at reasonable times have access to and copy any records,
inspect any monitoring equipment or method...and sample any effluents which the
owner or operator of such source is required to sample...
In addition, NPDES permits may contain inspection authority provisions.
Arrival
The facility inspection should occur during normal working hours unless information indicates
another time would be more appropriate. The inspector should announce him/herself and ask
to speak to a facility official. Prior to entering a facility, inspectors should observe it as
thoroughly as possible from public right-of-way (e.g., roads, sidewalks).
Credentials
When the proper facility officials have been located, the inspector must introduce himself or
herself as an EPA inspector and present the proper EPA credentials. Contractors performing the
inspection on EPA's behalf should identify themselves as contractors and present their
credentials or authorization letter. Credentials indicate that the holder is a lawful
representative of the regulatory agency and is authorized to perform NPDES inspections. The
credentials must be presented regardless of whether identification is requested. The inspector
should document that credentials were presented.
If the facility officials question the inspector's credentials after the credentials have been
reviewed, the officials may telephone the appropriate state or EPA Regional Office for
verification of the inspector's identification. Credentials must never be relinquished or allowed
to be copied. For more detailed information on the use of EPA Credentials, please refer to the
fact sheet "The Do's and Don'ts of Using EPA Credentials" (Appendix F).
Consent
If the inspector is allowed to enter, entry is considered voluntary and consensual.
The receptiveness of facility officials toward inspectors is likely to vary among facilities. Most
inspections will proceed without difficulty. In other cases, officials may be reluctant to give
entry consent because of misunderstood responsibilities, inconvenience to a facility's schedule,
Chapter 2 - Page 35
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
or other reasons that may be overcome by diplomacy and discussion. If consent to enter is
denied, the inspector should follow denial of entry procedures (see Problems with Entry or
Consent below).
Whenever there is a difficulty in gaining consent to enter, inspectors should tactfully probe the
reasons and work with officials to overcome the problems. Care should be taken, however, to
avoid threats of any kind, inflammatory discussions, or deepening of misunderstandings. If the
situation is beyond the authority or ability of the inspector, the inspector should leave the
facility and contact the supervisor or Office of Regional Counsel for further guidance.
Claims of Confidentiality
The inspector should explain the permittee's right to claim material as confidential business
information (CBI). The facility representative should be made aware that the inspector may
examine areas related to effluent production or storage even if the permittee has asserted
claims of confidentiality. CBI is discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
Waivers, Releases, and Sign-In Logs
When the facility provides a blank sign-in sheet, log, or visitor register, it is acceptable for
inspectors to sign it. However, EPA employees must not sign any type of "waiver" or "visitor
release" that would relieve the facility of responsibility for injury or that would limit the rights
of EPA to use data obtained from the facility.
If such a waiver or release is presented, the inspectors should politely explain that they cannot
sign and request a blank sign-in sheet. If the inspectors are refused entry because they do not
sign the release, they should leave and immediately report all pertinent facts to the appropriate
supervisor and/or legal staff. All events surrounding the refused entry should be fully
documented. Problems should be discussed cordially and professionally.
Less desirable and as a last resort the inspector may cross-out and initial any wording that is
unacceptable due to its restrictive nature. The facility must agree with this option.
PROBLEMS WITH ENTRY OR CONSENT
Because a facility may consider an inspection to be an adversarial proceeding, the facility
employees may question the legal authority, techniques, and competency of inspectors. Facility
officials also may display antagonism toward EPA personnel. In such cases, inspectors should
cordially restate the statutory authority that they are inspecting under and seek an explanation
for the denial of entry. If entry is still denied, the inspector should leave and obtain further
direction from their EPA supervisor or legal staff. Professionalism and politeness must prevail at
all times.
Entry Procedures
The following summarizes procedures that EPA developed as a result of the 1978 U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. Appendix G contains EPA's Memorandum on Entry
Procedures, "Conduct Inspections After the Barlow's Decision," in its entirety.
Chapter 2 - Page 36
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Ensure that all credentials and notices are presented properly to the facility owner or
agent in charge.
• If entry is not granted, ask the reason for the denial to see if obstacles (such as
misunderstandings) can be cleared. If resolution is beyond the authority of the
inspector, he or she may suggest that the officials seek advice from their attorneys (if
they have them) to clarify EPA's inspection authority under section 308 of the CWA.
• Sometimes it can be unclear if entry is being denied. If this is the case, clearly ask if entry
is being denied. If entry is still denied, the inspector should withdraw from the premises
and contact his or her supervisor or regional counsel. The supervisor will confer with
attorneys to discuss the desirability of obtaining an administrative warrant.
• All observations pertaining to the denial are to be carefully noted in the field notebook
and inspection report. Include such information as the facility name and exact address,
name and title of person(s) approached, name and title of the person(s) who refused
entry, date and time of denial, detailed reasons for denial, facility appearance, and any
reasonable suspicions of regulatory violations. All such information will be important
should a warrant be sought.
Actions to Take if Entry is Denied
If entry is denied, either to the entire facility or parts of the facility, the inspector should:
• Cite the appropriate EPA inspection authority to the company official, ask if he/she
understands the reason for your presence, and record the answer and any reason given
for entry denial.
• Record the name, title and telephone of the individual denying entry, as well as the date
and time.
• Leave the premises.
• Document any site conditions and the events related to the entry denial after leaving
the facility and inform your immediate supervisor or regional counsel.
Important Considerations
Inspectors should use discretion and avoid potentially threatening or inflammatory situations. If
a threatening confrontation occurs, the inspector should document it and then report it
immediately to the supervisor or staff attorney. If feasible, statements from witnesses should
be obtained and included in the documentation.
Withdrawal of Consent During Inspection
If the facility representative asks the inspector to leave the premises after the inspection has
begun, the inspector should leave as quickly as possible following the procedures discussed
previously for denial of entry. All activities and evidence obtained before the withdrawal of
Chapter 2 - Page 37
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
consent are valid. The inspector should ensure that all personal and government equipment is
removed from the facility.
WARRANTS
The inspector may be instructed by EPA attorneys, under certain circumstances, to conduct an
inspection under search warrant. A warrant is a judicial authorization for appropriate persons
to enter specifically described locations to inspect specific functions. A pre-inspection warrant
possibly could be obtained where there is reason to believe that entry will be denied when the
inspector arrives at the facility or when the inspector anticipates violations that could be hidden
during the time required to obtain a search warrant. This would be done only in unusual
circumstances.
D. OPENING CONFERENCE
Once credentials have been presented, the inspector can proceed to outline inspection plans
with facility officials. At the opening conference, the inspector provides names of the
inspectors, the purpose of the inspection, authorities under which the inspection is being
conducted, and procedures to be followed. EPA encourages cooperation between the
inspectors and the facility officials to facilitate assignments and ensure the success of the
inspection.
CONSIDERATIONS
Inspection Objectives
A discussion of inspection objectives will inform facility officials of the purpose and scope of the
inspection and may help avoid misunderstandings.
Order of Inspection
A discussion of the order in which the inspection will be conducted will help eliminate wasted
time by allowing officials time to make records available and start up intermittent operations.
Meeting Schedules
A schedule of meetings with key personnel will allow facility officials adequate time to spend
with the inspector.
List of Records
A list of facility records that will need to be reviewed as part of the inspection should be
provided to facility officials (i.e., permits, DMRs, chain-of-custody forms, sampling data,
operation and maintenance records, training records, lab data sheets, and other records can be
requested depending on the inspections type being performed). This will allow the officials
adequate time to gather the records and make them available for the inspector.
Accompaniment
It is important that a facility official accompany the inspector during the inspection (unless the
facility is unmanned) not only to answer questions and describe the plant and its principal
operating characteristics, but also for safety and liability considerations. Discussion of such
Chapter 2 - Page 38
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
needs with facility officials will provide them the opportunity to allocate personnel for this
purpose, however, in some circumstances, the facility official may choose not to accompany the
inspector. Even in these situations, the inspector should talk to the personnel responsible for
performing sample collection and analysis, or other relevant functions, to gather specific
information on these procedures (including required knowledge of responsible personnel).
Permit Verification
The inspector should verify pertinent information included in the permit, such as facility name
and address, receiving waters, and discharge points. The inspector should also validate (or
obtain) accurate outfall location data (i.e., the precise latitude and longitude of each outfall
using a handheld, calibrated GPS unit).
Safety Requirements
The inspector should be prepared with the appropriate safety equipment (e.g., hard hat, safety
shoes, safety glasses, safety vest) The inspector should reaffirm which Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) and other facility safety regulations will be involved in the
inspection and should determine whether his safety equipment is adequate.
Split Samples
Facility officials should be informed during the opening conference of their right to receive a
split or duplicate of any physical sample collected for laboratory analysis if sufficient sample
volume is collected. Officials should indicate at this point their desire to receive split and
duplicate samples so that arrangements can be made to secure the samples during inspection.
It is the responsibility of the facility to provide its own sample bottles, preservatives, etc.
Photography
Photography is an essential tool used to help the inspector prepare a thorough and accurate
inspection report, to present evidence in enforcement proceedings, and to document
conditions found at a site. The CWA gives the inspector the authority to collect and copy
records including digital images during an inspection. See Section E, "Documentation," for
additional information on documenting digital images.
The inspector should work with facility personnel during the opening conference to ensure
photography meets the sites requirements. Prior to taking digital images, the inspector should
obtain the permittee's approval. The inspector should be tactful in handling any concerns or
objections a permittee may have about the use of a camera. In some cases, the inspector may
explain to the permittee's representative that wastestreams, receiving waters, and wastewater
treatment facilities are public information, not trade secrets. If the facility representative
expresses reservations about allowing the inspector to take digital images, these concerns
should be discussed to seek a mutually acceptable solution. This can be as simple as agreeing to
avoid photographing sensitive items which are irrelevant to the inspection, and/or allowing the
representative to view each digital image as it is taken. The facility may also have concerns
about the safety of taking photographs in areas where there are explosive vapors and may
require equipment be intrinsically safe or may need to issue a "hot work" permit allowing the
Chapter 2 - Page 39
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
use of the camera in certain areas. The inspector should work with the facility personnel to
determine areas that may not allow digital cameras.
The facility representative can claim digital images as CBI if they contain confidential
information, but inspection photographs should not be deleted except for rare circumstances.
An inspection image may be deleted if the image is claimed as CBI and the inspector is not
authorized to receive CBI. Additionally, the image may be deleted if it contains CBI that is not
relevant to the inspection or if it captures facility staff, and it is against the facility's policy to
photograph its employees. In cases where an image is deleted, the inspector should note why it
was deleted in the inspection notebook.
If the facility would like to retain copies of digital images taken during the inspection, the
inspector should suggest that the facility staff accompany the inspector and take their own
digital images of the same areas that the inspector is taking. According to EPA's Information
Security National Rules of Behavior, to maintain EPA Information Technology (IT) security, an
EPA computer, tablet or other electronic device should never be physically connected to a
facility computer or device. Additionally, the inspector must only use EPA-authorized internet
connections that meet the required security and communication standards to wirelessly
transmit digital images. The inspector may provide the facility copies of digital images taken
during the inspection upon request via email.
As a general rule, it is considered a denial of entry when a facility imposes any photographic
restrictions that limit the inspector from properly performing the inspection. In the event the
permittee's representative still refuses to allow digital images, and the inspector believes the
images will have a substantial impact on future enforcement proceedings, the inspector's
supervisor or regional attorneys should be consulted for further instructions.
Facilities may claim that certain digital images are CBI, in which case the inspector must handle
the digital images following all CBI procedures. If there are other circumstances such as national
security issues, the inspector should try to collect the evidence needed without taking digital
images. The inspector should inform the site representative that he or she will be taking digital
images as a routine part of their inspection. If entry is denied, the inspector may photograph
areas of the facility exposed to public view, when standing outside the facility.
Small Businesses
The inspector should provide the facility with EPA's "Small Business Resources Information
Sheet," where applicable. The information sheet provides resources to help small businesses
understand and comply with federal and state environmental laws. EPA's "Small Business
Resources Information Sheet" can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/small-
business-resources-information-sheet.
Closing Conference
A post-inspection meeting should be scheduled with appropriate officials to provide a final
opportunity to gather information, answer questions, present initial observations of
deficiencies, and complete administrative duties. The inspector should not make
Chapter 2 - Page 40
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
determinations of compliance or noncompliance while on-site or during the closing conference.
Determinations of compliance or noncompliance should be made back at the office in
consultation with appropriate management.
New Requirements
The inspector should discuss and answer questions pertaining to any new rules and regulations
that might affect the facility. If the inspector is aware of proposed rules that might affect the
facility, he or she may wish to encourage facility officials to obtain a copy.
_ documentation
Providing documentation of an inspection is an inspector's basic responsibility. Documentation
serves to "freeze" the actual conditions existing at the time of inspection so that evidence can
be examined objectively by compliance personnel.
Documentation is a general term referring to all printed information and electronic media
produced, copied, or taken by an inspector to provide evidence of suspected violations. Forms
of documentation include the field notebook, statements, photographs, videotapes, drawings,
maps, printed matter, mechanical recordings, and copies of records.
INSPECTOR'S FIELD NOTEBOOK
The core of all documentation relating to an inspection is the field notebook, which provides
accurate and inclusive documentation of all inspection activities. A bound notebook with
sequentially numbered pages should be used, and entries should be made in permanent,
waterproof ink. A new inspection notebook should be used for each new inspection. Multiple
inspections from different facilities should not be kept in a single notebook as they lose their
validity if separated from the notebook, such as when one set of notes is needed for the court
record. You will lose all notes from other inspections contained in the notebook if inspection
notes are subpoenaed.
The notebook will form the basis for written reports and should contain only facts and
pertinent observations. Language should be objective, factual, and free of personal feelings or
terminology that might prove inappropriate. Cross out and initial any errors in the notebook.
The field notebook should never leave the inspector's possession during the inspection. Do not
allow a facility to copy the field notebook. Notebooks become an important part of the
evidence package and can be admissible in court. The field notebook is a government record
and subject to record retention schedules.
Inspection Notes
An inspector may need to testify in an enforcement proceeding. Therefore, it is imperative that
each inspector keep detailed records of inspections, investigations, samples collected, and
related inspection functions. An inspector should note the date and time of arrivals and
departures each day of the inspection and document the sequence of events during each day of
the inspection. Types of information that should be entered into the field notebook include the
following:
Chapter 2 - Page 41
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Observations
Record all conditions, practices, and other observations that will be useful in preparing the
inspection report or that will validate other types of evidence. For example, weather conditions
such as rain/snowfall events prior to and during the inspection are useful and can assist the
inspector in determining whether inflow/infiltration is a problem with the facility, or whether
stormwater controls were adequate.
Documents and Digital Images
All documents taken or prepared by the inspector such as the completed checklists for the
inspection report should be noted and related to specific inspection activities. The inspector
should adequately document each digital image so that its content can be properly identified
with the site, date, GPS coordinates (if available), photographer name, and description of the
digital image. The "Digital Images" section below contains additional documentation
information.
Unusual Conditions and Problems
Note and describe unusual conditions and problems in detail.
General Information
List names and titles of all facility personnel contacted during the inspection and the activities
they perform. Business cards of facility representatives may be useful. Any statements made by
facility personnel during the inspection should be included in the field notebook along with
other general information. Information about a facility's recordkeeping procedures may also be
useful in later inspections.
SAMPLES
For sample analytical results to be admissible as evidence, a logical and documented
connection must be shown between samples taken and analytical results reported. This
connection is shown by using a chain-of-custody form that identifies and accompanies a sample
between the time it is collected and the time it is analyzed. Sampling techniques and
procedures are discussed in Chapter 5, "Sampling."
INTERVIEWS AND STATEMENTS
Inspectors may attempt to obtain a formal statement from a person who has personal,
firsthand knowledge of facts pertinent to a potential violation. In most inspections, the majority
of information will be collected through informal statements and interviews. The inspector
should interview as many of the facility personnel as possible to prepare an accurate
description of the facility and its operations. It is useful to talk with people throughout the work
area. For informal statements and interviews, attribute assertions to specific facility personnel
as much as possible. Do not tape record without the individual's knowledge. When conducting
an interview, ask how, what, where, when, and why. Allow adequate time for the personnel to
respond.
Chapter 2 - Page 42
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
For interviews, open-ended questions are usually the most useful for gathering information.
However, the yes/no, or close-ended questions are also sometimes necessary when the
inspector is trying to collect specific information.
The principal objective of obtaining a formal statement is to record in writing, clearly and
concisely, relevant factual information. Request the person making the statement sign and date
the statement to certify that the document reflects an accurate summary of what they said.
Procedures and Considerations
• Determine the need for a statement. Will it provide useful information? Is the person
making the statement qualified to do so by personal knowledge?
• Ascertain all the facts. Make sure all information is factual and firsthand. Record
statements that are relevant and that the person can verify in court. Avoid taking
statements that cannot be personally verified.
• In preparing a statement, use a simple narrative style with clear, plain stilted language.
- Narrate the facts in the words of the person making the statement.
- Use the first-person singular ("I am manager of . ..").
- Present the facts in chronological order (unless the situation calls for another
arrangement).
• Positively identify the person making the statement (name, address, position).
• Show why the person is qualified to make the statement.
• Present the pertinent facts.
• Have the person read the statement and make any necessary corrections before signing.
If necessary, read the statement to the person in the presence of a witness.
- All mistakes that are corrected must be initialed by the person making the
statement.
• Ask the person making the statement to write a brief concluding paragraph indicating
that he or she read and understood the statement and have that person sign this
declarative statement. This safeguard will counter a later claim that the person did not
know what he or she was signing.
• If he or she refuses to sign the statement, elicit an acknowledgment that it is true and
correct. Ask for a statement in his or her own hand ("I have read this statement and it is
true, but I am not signing it because..."). Failing that, declare at the bottom of the
statement that the facts were recorded as revealed and that the person read the
statement and avowed it to be true. Attempt to have any witness to the statement sign
the statement including the witness' name and address.
• Provide a copy of the statement to the signer if requested.
Chapter 2 - Page 43
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DIGITAL IMAGES
The documentary value of digital images ranks high as admissible evidence. Clear digital images
of relevant subjects provide an objective record of conditions at the time of inspection. If
possible, keep "sensitive" operations out of the photographed background. To avoid capturing
confidential information, the inspector should confer with the permittee to determine if the
intended digital image will contain confidential information. If the inspector must take a digital
image of an area containing confidential information, the facility representative can claim the
image as CBI. Facilities may claim that certain digital images are CBI, in which case the inspector
must handle the images following all CBI procedures. Digital images can also be used to collect
copies of paper records where photocopiers are not available.
The primary objective of inspection photography is to create an image that accurately
documents the inspector's observations and that can be used to testify that the image is a "true
and accurate representation of what he or she saw on that date."
Digital cameras offer the advantage of immediate viewing of the image to assure proper
composition and exposure. Date and time information is stored with the digital image and
should be downloaded and stored with the image. Prior to taking digital images, the inspector
should ensure the date and time settings on the camera are accurate. The site, photographer
name, GPS coordinates (if available), weather conditions, and a description of the photograph
(including compass direction if known (e.g., looking north or facing northwest)) should be
recorded in the inspector's field notebook or a separate photograph log. Some digital cameras
have built in GPS capability. If the camera does not, a separate GPS unit could be used to record
the location. Video cameras and some digital cameras allow information about the digital image
to be voice recorded. Refer to Appendix H, "EPA's Policy on the Use of Digital Cameras for
Inspections," for EPA guidance on using digital cameras for inspections.
Equipment
Depending on the situation, there are normally three types of digital images that can be taken:
1) the establishing shot, 2) the subject, and 3) the detail shot. The "establishing shot" or wide-
angle shot is a digital image taken from a distance that shows the subject in relation to
permanent landmarks that can be used for reference in establishing the location of the subject.
The "subject" shot emphasizes a specific object or event. The "detail" shot or close-up is
typically an area of interest within the subject, such as a nameplate or leaky valve. It may be
helpful to include an object of known size for scale reference such as a notebook or pen.
Safety
In areas where there is a danger of explosion, flash images should not be taken. In some
situations, where explosive vapors may be present, such as petroleum refineries, hot-work
permits, provided by the facility, may be necessary to take digital images. If there is a danger of
electrical shock, digital images should be taken from a distance known to be safe. As mentioned
previously, inspectors can work with facility personnel during the opening conference to ensure
photography meets the sites requirements.
Chapter 2 - Page 44
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
VIDEO
For some inspections, video cameras can be more effective in documenting your findings. Video
cameras not only can document motion relative to a violation, but record sound, have extreme
zoom capabilities, and can operate in very low light conditions. When recording sound,
inspectors must be aware that all comments are recorded.
GPS
GPS units can document the latitude, longitude, and altitude for photographs, samples, or
facility unit operations and features. The GPS coordinates can be entered into the field
notebook or can be electronically downloaded.
DRAWINGS AND MAPS
Schematic drawings, maps, charts, and other graphic records can be useful supporting
documentation. They can provide graphic clarification of site location relative to the overall
facility, relative height and size of objects, and other information which, in combination with
samples, photographs, and other documentation, can produce an accurate, complete evidence
package. Electronic maps of the facility, available through Google Earth, should be obtained
prior to the inspection and used to verify any changes that may have occurred since the Google
Earth image was taken.
Drawings and maps should be simple and free of extraneous details. Include basic
measurements and compass points to provide a scale for interpretation. Identify drawings and
maps by source, inspector's initials, and date.
PRINTED MATTER
Brochures, literature, labels, and other printed matter may provide important information
regarding a facility's conditions and operations.
Collect these materials as documentation if they are relevant. The inspector should create a
receipt of documents and samples taken from the facility, ensuring that all printed matter
obtained during the inspection is listed on this receipt.
ELECTRONIC RECORDS
Properly date and sign printouts of electronic records so they can be entered as evidence.
Charts, graphs, and other hard copy documents produced from computer output should be
treated as printed documentation and handled accordingly.
COPIES OF RECORDS
Facility records should be reviewed to verify the facility properly reports and maintains the
required records and to verify permit compliance. The facility may store records in a variety of
information retrieval systems, including written or printed materials or electronic format.
Chapter 2 - Page 45
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Obtaining Copies of Necessary Records
When copies of records are necessary for an inspection report consider, storage and retrieval
methods.
Written or printed records generally can be photocopied on-site. Portable photocopy machines
may be available to inspectors through the Regional Office. Where possible, inspectors should
ask the facilities in advance if copying equipment would be available. When necessary,
inspectors can obtain approval from the appropriate EPA authority to pay a facility a
"reasonable" price for use of copying equipment. If the facility does not have a photocopier and
a portable photocopier is not available, a photocopy machine is usually accessible at a nearby
site (e.g., post office, convenience store). However, inspectors must obtain permission from the
permittee prior to taking records off-site for copying. Information on some records may also be
gathered with a camera.
• At a minimum, all copies made for or by the inspector should be listed in a document
receipt, along with any printed matter or samples taken.
• When photocopying is impossible or impractical, close-up photographs or videotape or
hand copying could be used.
Computer or electronic records may require the generation of hard copies for inspection
purposes. Arrangements should be made during the opening conference, if possible, for these
copies. Records could also be transferred electronically to a flash drive or disc. Photographs of
computer screens or electronically saved screen shots may provide adequate copies of records
if other means do not exist.
Identification Procedures
The records reviewed during an inspection should immediately be adequately identified to
ensure the records can be differentiated and tracked throughout the EPA custody process and
are admissible in court. When inspectors are called to testify, they must be able to identify each
document and state its source and the reason for its collection if asked.
The inspector should log the records taken on the receipt of documents and samples taken
from the facility, to be signed by both a facility representative and the inspector. The document
receipt should clearly list each item taken with a descriptive title and assign each item a
number. Once a facility representative and the inspector sign off on the receipt, the facility
should make a copy of this receipt for their records. This receipt can also include other relevant
information about what is taken from the facility, such as the number of pages in a document.
The document and sample receipt thus provides a valuable reference for what records, copies,
samples, etc. were obtained during the inspection.
Logging
Documents obtained during the inspection should be entered in the field notebook by a logging
or coding system. The system should include the identifying number, date, and other relevant
information:
Chapter 2 - Page 46
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• The reason for copying the material (i.e., the nature of the suspected violation or
discrepancy).
• The source of the record (i.e., type of file, individual who supplied record).
• The manner of collection (i.e., photocopy, other arrangements).
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Return originals to the proper person or to their correct location.
• Group related records together.
• Handle CBI records according to the special confidential provisions discussed below.
Routine Records
The inspector may find it convenient to make copies of records, such as laboratory analysis
sheets and data summaries, to refresh his or her memory when preparing the inspection
report. It is not always necessary to follow the formal identification and logging requirements
when such records are obtained for general information purposes or to aid in the preparation
of routine inspection reports.
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI)
Handling of CBI or Trade Secrets during Inspections
Section 308(b)(2) of the CWA (40 CFR Part 2) protects and defines trade secrets and
Confidential Business Information (CBI) from public disclosure. Section 308(a)(4) of the CWA
states that an inspector may sample an effluent, request information, have access to the
location of the effluent, and inspect any monitoring equipment. The information that is
collected is available to the public, unless the information is claimed as CBI. If a permittee does
not want inspection information to be available to the public, he or she must request that EPA
consider the information confidential.
When conducting compliance inspections, an inspector may have to deal with claims of
business confidentiality as authorized under section 308 of the CWA and as defined under 40
CFR Part 2, Subpart B. This section of the statute is designed to protect CBI from unauthorized
disclosure. CBI includes information considered to be trade secrets (including chemical identity,
processes, or formulation) or commercial or financial information that could damage a
company's competitive position if they became publicly known. Inspectors that handle CBI must
complete applicable CBI training and be cleared to handle CBI.
Any business being inspected has the right to claim all or any part of the information gathered
during that inspection, other than effluent data or publicly available information, as CBI. See
section 308(b) of the CWA; 40 CFR 2.302(e) and 2.20. EPA often notifies the business of its right
to assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of the 308 letter. Frequently, the 308 Letter is
used for this notification. After the business has responded to the 308 letter and, in that
response, has asserted whatever claims of business confidentiality for eligible information it
intends to make, EPA generally will be aware of any issues related to the handling of the
information claimed as CBI.
Chapter 2 - Page 47
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The affected business may assert a CBI claim at any time, per 40 CFR 2.203(c), unless EPA
requires the business to assert all CBI claims at the time of submission of a response to the 308
Letter and failure to do so may result in disclosure without further notice. See 40 CFR 2.203(a).
If no such timing requirement is provided in the 308 Letter, the business can make such a claim
at the time of the inspection or at any time after the inspection. Any CBI claim must be in
writing and signed by a responsible company official. Information claimed as CBI can be later
reviewed to determine whether the claim is valid. The CBI claim relates only to the public
availability of such data and cannot be used to deny facility access to inspectors performing
duties under section 308 of the CWA. Therefore, a business is entitled to assert a CBI claim for
all information that an inspector requests or has access to; however, a business may not refuse
to release information requested by the inspector under the authority of section 308 of the
CWA on the grounds that the information is considered CBI or a trade secret.
While the business is entitled to make a CBI claim on all information that an inspector requests
or has access to while on-site (other than effluent data or publicly available information), these
CBI claims are subject to review by EPA's Office of General Counsel or Office of Regional
Counsel and the business may be asked to substantiate its CBI claims. See 40 CFR 2.204(e). If a
CBI claim for certain information is received by EPA after the information itself is received by
EPA, EPA will make such efforts as are administratively practicable to associate the late claim
with copies of the previously submitted information in EPA's files. See 40 CFR 2.203(c).
However, EPA cannot assure that such efforts will be effective, considering the possibility of
prior disclosure or widespread prior dissemination of the information.
When a business makes the CBI claim, the Regional Office normally will not determine the
validity of that claim until there is a request for the information from a third party, if EPA
desires to determine whether the business information is entitled confidential treatment, if it is
likely the EPA will be requested to disclose this information, or if EPA believes that the
information should be included in the public record in connection with a proceeding. The exact
procedures for making and handling CBI determinations are contained in 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B. Until the EPA makes an adverse determination on the CBI claims, the information is
entitled confidential treatment and protected from release.
In some cases, entry to a facility may be denied based on the claim by a permittee that there is
CBI at the facility. In such cases, the inspector should recite the relevant subsections of 308 so
they are clearly understood by all parties involved. The inspector should then explain the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, concerning EPA's handling of CBI and information
claimed as CBI. For example, the inspector could suggest that the protected material or process
be segregated from other non-CBI information or processes. If the facility representative still
refuses entry, the inspector should not contest the issue but should treat the matter as denial
of entry and immediately notify the appropriate EPA enforcement office for instructions.
Types of Information Excluded from Confidential Treatment
To understand CBI claims, an inspector should know the types of information entitled
confidential treatment as defined in 40 CFR Part 2. The regulations specifically exclude certain
types of information from confidential treatment. This "public information" includes the NPDES
Chapter 2 - Page 48
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
permit application and all "effluent data" as defined in 40 CFR 2.302(a)(2)(i). According to this
definition, effluent data include all information necessary to determine the identity, amount,
frequency, concentration, temperature, and other characteristics (to the extent they are
related to water quality) of:
• Any pollutant that has been discharged by the source (or any pollutant resulting from
any discharge from the source).
• The pollutant which, under an applicable standard or limitation, the source was
authorized to discharge (including, to the extent necessary for such purpose, a
description of the manner or rate of operation of the source).
Effluent data may also include a general description of the location and/or nature of the source
to the extent necessary to distinguish it from other sources (e.g., a description of the device,
installation, or operation constituting the source).
Confidentiality Agreements and Nondisclosure
Inspectors, whether EPA, the state, or EPA contractors conducting NPDES compliance
inspections, shall not sign any pledge of secrecy or confidentiality agreements or any
agreement that would limit the EPA's ability to disclose information received while inspecting a
facility or inconsistent with 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. See 40 CFR 2.215. Section 308 of the CWA
does not specify that a secrecy agreement must be executed as a condition of entry.
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information by EPA or state employees and authorized
contractors is prohibited by law (33 U.S.C. 1318(b) and 18 U.S.C. Part 1905). In addition, all
contractor inspectors must sign a statement that they will be personally bound by 40 CFR Part
2, Subpart B, and not disclose trade secrets or CBI.
It is not appropriate for the compliance inspector to determine whether a permittee's CBI claim
is appropriate or justified. Once such a claim is made, the information must not be disclosed
and must be kept confidential until a determination is made by the appropriate EPA legal office.
EPA employees who violate these requirements may be subject to dismissal, suspension, or
fines. Criminal action may be taken against EPA employees and authorized contractors or
subcontractors who are unauthorized to disclose CBI.
Best Practices for Handling Confidential Business Information
Routine security measures will help ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to prevent
unauthorized persons from viewing CBI or information claimed as CBI. When practical
circumstances prohibit the inspector from following the procedures exactly, he or she should
take steps to protect the information and note those procedures in the field notebook. He or
she should mark all information claimed as CBI received as such and place in a locked filing
cabinet or a safe immediately after the inspection is completed. Maintain a chain-of-custody
record for all CBI and information claimed as CBI. Since CBI and information claimed as CBI
requires special handling procedures, it may be useful to keep it in a separate notebook in a
secure/locked location. By doing this, only the CBI material, and not the entire notebook of
inspection findings, would have to be kept in a locked filing cabinet.
Chapter 2 - Page 49
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• While traveling. The inspector may be on the road for several days while conducting
inspections. The inspector is responsible for ensuring that the information collected is
handled securely.
- Maintain physical possession of the documents. Documents and field notes are
considered secure if they are in the physical possession of the inspector and are not
visible to others while in use.
- Keep inspection documents that contain sensitive information in a locked briefcase.
If it is impractical to carry the briefcase store the briefcase in a locked area, such as
the trunk of a motor vehicle.
- Place physical samples in locked containers and store in a locked portion of a motor
vehicle. The chain-of-custody procedures provide further protection for ensuring the
integrity of the sample.
- CBI should not be stored in checked baggage if travelling by airplane.
• In the office. Each region should develop CBI standard operating procedures. It is useful
to indicate who the Regional Administrator, Division Director, Branch Chief or Document
Control Officer has authorized to have access to CBI. An access log should be maintained
for all transactions. Do not copy information marked "trade secret" and/or "confidential
business information" unless there is written authority from the Regional Administrator,
Division Director, Branch Chief, or Document Control Officer. Requests for access to CBI
or information claimed as CBI by any member of the public, or by an employee of a
federal, state, or local agency, must be handled according to the procedures contained
in the EPA Freedom of Information Act regulations under 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. All
such requests should be referred to the responsible regional organizational unit.
_ closing conference
To achieve the most effective results from compliance inspections, the inspector should
communicate results promptly to the facility management and personnel. The inspector should
limit the discussion to preliminary findings of the inspection. If appropriate, the inspector may
compare findings with the permittee's NPDES permit requirements, consent decrees,
administrative orders, and other enforcement actions. At no time should inspectors state
whether any of the observed deficiencies are violations.
Facility officials are usually anxious to discuss the findings of an inspection before the
inspector(s) leave. Inspectors should hold a closing meeting or conference for the presentation
and discussion of preliminary inspection findings. The closing conference provides an
opportunity to describe areas of concern (e.g., unpermitted discharge; parts of a SWPPP
missing; routine inspections not being done; silt fence not installed; discharge to a storm drain).
During this meeting or conference, inspectors can answer final questions, prepare necessary
receipts, provide information about the NPDES program, and request the compilation of data
that were not previously available during the inspection. It also presents an opportunity to
deliver compliance assistance materials and/or information in accordance with EPA's National
Policy on the Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During Inspections
Chapter 2 - Page 50
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(EPA, 2003), available at: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/policy-role-epa-inspector-
providing-compliance-assistance-du ring-inspections.
Inspectors should be prepared to discuss follow-up procedures, such as how results of the
inspection will be used and what further communications the region, state, tribe, or locality
may have with the facility. Inspectors should conduct closing conferences in accordance with
any applicable guidelines or standard operating procedures (SOPs) established by the EPA
Regional Administrator, State Commissioner, Tribal Official, or Local Director.
The inspector may issue a Deficiency Notice that specifies existing or potential problems in a
permittee's self-monitoring program. Issuing a Deficiency Notice on-site or after the site
inspection provides a swift and simple method for improving the quality of data from NPDES
self-monitoring activities. An example Deficiency Notice and EPA's "Memorandum on
Deficiency Notice Guidance" are provided in Appendix I.
_ inspection'report
The adequacy of compliance follow-up to correct problems or deficiencies noted during the
inspection greatly depends on the report prepared by the inspector. The following sections of
this chapter detail procedures for collecting and substantiating the information used to prepare
this report. Once collected, however, the inspector should organize and arrange the material so
that compliance personnel can make maximum use of the evidence or inspection information.
The information presented in this section provides general guidelines for organizing evidence
and preparing an inspection report.
OBJECTIVE OF THE NPDES INSPECTION REPORT
The objective of a NPDES inspection report is to organize and coordinate all inspection
information and evidence into a comprehensive, usable document. To meet this objective,
information in an inspection report must be presented in a clear, well-organized manner. The
information should be objective and factual; the report must not speculate on the ultimate
result of the inspection findings. Inspectors must avoid using of the term "violation" and should
instead use words like finding or deficiency. The following are particularly important:
• Information in the report should be factual and based on sound inspection practices.
Observations should be the verifiable result of firsthand knowledge. Compliance
personnel must be able to depend on the accuracy of all information.
• Information in an inspection report should be relevant to the subject of the report.
Extraneous data that clutters a report and may reduce its clarity and usefulness should
not be included in the report. Avoid personal comments and opinions.
• Substantiate suspected deficiency(s) by as much factual information as is feasible to
gather. Organize all information pertinent to the subject into a complete package.
Documentation (e.g., photographs, statements, sample documentation) accompanying
the report should be referenced clearly so that anyone reading the report will get a
Chapter 2 - Page 51
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
complete, clear overview of the situation. The more comprehensive the evidence is, the
better and easier to determine compliance or noncompliance.
EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE AND DOCUMENT FINDINGS IN THE INSPECTION REPORT
This is especially critical when the findings and observations support that an alleged deficiency
has occurred. The following includes examples of how to effectively communicate alleged
deficiencies.
1. First, state the requirement in the actual language of the statute, permit, or regulation and
then describe and present the evidence that shows how the facility failed to meet the
requirement. It can be helpful to repeat the same words used in the statute, permit, or
regulation when describing what was observed at the facility. Each alleged deficiency should
be made obvious to the reader by thoroughly and clearly describing all documents,
photographs, statements, and other evidence in the inspection report. This should include
the inspector's own observations. For example:
a. Failure to meet Missouri State Operating Permit (MSOP) conditions. The Missouri
MSOP, M00023456, issued to the City of Pollutionville, at Section C. Special Conditions,
Subsection 6. General Criteria, contains the following requirement: "a) Waters shall be
free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause formation of putrescent, unsightly
or harmful bottom deposits or prevent full maintenance of beneficial uses." On January
5, 2002, at the WWTP's outfall 32 (see map—attachment 3), I observed the receiving
water body, Greenfoot Stream, to have approximately 4-5 inches of sludge deposit on
the bottom 9 inches (see photos #10-14, approximation of depth made with 12" ruler)
as well as a blood worm population (photos #15-16, estimate of blood worm population
based on counting the number of blood worms per square foot of water surface to a
depth of about 1 foot). Greenfoot Stream is on the Missouri 303(d) list for nutrient
content. Mr. Smith, the plant operator, signed a statement that the plant had been
losing solids to the stream for four months due to an increased organic load from Acme
Meat Packing Co. (see attachment 5) ...
b. Failure to properly operate and maintain treatment system; failure to meet the TSS
daily maximum limit. Part IV.B.3 of the EPA Region 8 NPDES Permit, WY0112233, (the
permit) states, "The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this
permit." During the inspection, I observed that the secondary clarifier was not
operating. Mr. Helpful, the superintendent, stated that the secondary clarifier had been
offline for the past month until money for a new drive unit could be procured, and the
old drive unit became jammed and no longer works. Based on sampling records I
reviewed at the facility, the facility effluent has exceeded the daily maximum total
suspended solids limit of 45 mg/L listed in Part I I.B.I of the permit on March 23, 2014
(190 mg/L); March 31, 2014 (104 mg/L); April 6, 2014 (188 mg/L); and April 11, 2014
(154 mg/L).
Chapter 2 - Page 52
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Use a separate, indented paragraph to highlight each alleged deficiency along with an obvious
font change.
Each inspector should use the following techniques to ensure a well-documented inspection
report:
1. Write the report as soon as possible upon return from the field. As noted earlier, excessive
delays or reports not written "near-in-time" to the inspection can compromise EPA's ability
to conduct timely enforcement.
2. Write the report in the active voice and in a "compare and contrast" style. Each alleged
deficiency identified should be stated in a manner where the facts are presented and then
compared, against the statute, permit or regulatory requirement.
3. Use simple, direct language, short sentences and paragraphs, and avoid repetition.
4. Identify, by name and relationship to the facility, who said what and when.
5. Clearly identify all alleged deficiencies observed during the inspection or evaluated prior to
the report write-up.
6. Reference the applicable statute, permit, or regulation for each alleged deficiency
identified. If the inspection is conducted in a state that is authorized to implement the
regulation, then the applicable state law or regulation should be referenced.
7. Provide a complete and detailed description of all materials (e.g., all photographs, maps,
diagrams) gathered to support the potential violation.
8. Identify, number, and reference all attachments in the text of the field report.
9. Use consistent word choice; e.g., if a particular device is called a "Waste-o-matic," use the
term "Waste-o-matic" throughout the report to describe that device.
10. Do not use negative inferences. For example, avoid saying "...the only drums found were...,"
which is not first person and implies that no other drums were at the facility. Simply state
what was observed; e.g., "During the inspection, I observed five drums which were..."
11. Do not use vague and ambiguous terms or statements. For example, avoid using words like
indicated, implied, suggested, several, many, some, or it was determined.
12. Do not use absolute terms like all, always, or every, unless the findings and observations
have been fully verified and documented. Be as precise and accurate as possible.
13. Do not repeat or use information obtained from previous inspection reports that was not
verified during the inspection unless the purpose of stating previous alleged violations is to
establish that there is a pattern of the same alleged violations.
14. Describe all actions (including timeframes) that the facility said they would complete as a
result of the inspection.
Chapter 2 - Page 53
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
ELEMENTS OF A REPORT
Although specific information requirements for an inspection report will vary, most reports will
contain the same basic elements:
• Supplementary narrative information
• Copies of completed checklists
• Documentation
• Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (if required by the regional office Standard Operating
Procedures)
Supplementary Narrative Information
Supplementary narrative information could be a memorandum in the case of routine
inspections or a narrative report when major violations are detected. When a narrative report
is necessary to fully describe a compliance inspection, the contents of the report should focus
on supporting or explaining the information provided.
The narrative report should be a concise, factual summary of observations and activities,
organized logically and legibly, and supported by specific references to accompanying
documentation.
Basic steps in writing the narrative report include the following:
• Reviewing the information
- The first step in preparing the narrative is to collect all information gathered during
the inspection. Review the inspector's field notebook in detail. Review all evidence
for relevance and completeness. A telephone call or, in unusual circumstances, a
follow-up visit may be needed to obtain additional or supplementary information.
Record any phone call relating to the inspection in the inspector's logbook with date
and time.
• Organizing the material
- Organize the information according to need, present it logically and
comprehensively. Organize the narrative so that it is easily understood.
• Referencing accompanying material
- Reference all documentation accompanying a narrative report clearly so that the
reader will be able to easily locate the items. The "Documentation" section in this
chapter provides details on document identification. The inspector should check all
documentation for clarity before writing the report.
• Writing the narrative report
- Once the material is reviewed, organized, and referenced the narrative can be
written. The purpose of the narrative is to factually record the procedures used in,
and findings resulting from, the evidence-gathering process. The inspector should
refer to routine procedures and practices used during the inspection, but should
Chapter 2 - Page 54
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
detail facts relating to potential violations and discrepancies. The field notebook is a
guide for preparing the narrative report.
- If the inspector has followed the steps presented in this manual, the report will
develop logically from the organizational framework of the inspection. In preparing
the narrative, the inspector should strive to use plain and simple language and
always proofread the narrative carefully.
• Copies of completed checklists
- Refer to comprehensive checklists in the technical chapters of this manual and in the
appendices. When appropriate, use these checklists to collect information during
the inspection, the region may modify these to specific concerns. Include copies of
all completed checklists in the inspection report.
• Documentation
- Include or reference all documentation produced or collected by the inspector to
provide evidence of suspected violations in the inspection report. The
"Documentation" section in this chapter provides details on obtaining and
organizing this material.
INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM (ICIS)
The inspection office should ensure that all required data are entered into ICIS, which is used
for national tracking of NPDES permit information. EPA does not credit the inspection until it is
coded/entered into ICIS. Therefore, timely completion of reports and data entry into ICIS is
essential as part of the compliance inspection follow-up. Make every effort to ensure that data
are entered no later than 30 days after the inspection is completed.
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)
ICIS supports the information needs of the National Enforcement and Compliance program as
well as the unique needs of the NPDES program. ICIS integrates data that is currently located in
more than a dozen separate data systems. The web-based system enables individuals from
states, communities, facilities, and EPA to access integrated enforcement and compliance data
from any desktop connected to the Internet. EPA's ability to target the most critical
environmental problems will improve as the system integrates data from all media.
ICIS features include:
• Desktop access
• Internet access
• Integrated data
• Real-time entry and retrieval of data
• Powerful reporting capabilities
• User-friendliness
Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS)
Chapter 2 - Page 55
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
In FY 2002, EPA began collecting information on EPA NPDES compliance inspection outcomes
using a manual ICDS form. In FY 2003, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) launched ICIS to electronically capture compliance and enforcement information,
including ICDS data. Regions have the option of submitting ICDS information by submitting
summary information at mid-year and end-of-year to EPA Headquarters similar to other
manually reported information or entering the ICDS data directly into ICIS. Regions must decide
whether EPA inspectors or central data entry personnel will be responsible for entering the
data into ICIS. If EPA inspectors enter the data, no manual ICDS form will be needed since the
information to fill out the form should be included in the inspector's notes. If central data entry
personnel enter the data, EPA inspectors should complete the manual ICDS form and forward it
to their first-line supervisor for review prior to data entry into ICIS. The ICDS form is included in
Appendix J.
H. REFERENCES
Suarez, J.P. (2003). Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During
Inspections. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, Final National Policy.
Chapter 2 - Page 56
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 3 -
DOCUMENTATION/RECORDKEEPING AND
REPORTING
Contents
A. Inspection Authority and Objectives 58
Authority and Objectives 58
B. Evaluation Procedures 59
Verification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Evaluation Procedures 59
Compliance Schedule Status Review 62
POTW Pretreatment Requirements Review 63
In-depth Investigations 64
C. Verification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Evaluation Checklist 65
Associated Appendices
L. Sample Discharge Monitoring Report Form
Chapter 3 - Page 57
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. INSPECTION AUTHORITY AND OBJECTIVES
AUTHORITY AND OBJECTIVES
Statutory Recordkeeping Authority: Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 308 and 402
Regulatory Requirements: Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 136, 401,
403, 405-471, and 503, as applicable
Inspection Authority: CWA Section 308
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system requires facilities
to maintain records and report periodically on the quantity and type of discharged effluent. The
permit stipulates recordkeeping and reporting conditions. Evaluations are conducted at
selected permitted facilities to determine compliance with permit requirements. The
procedures listed below should be used for these routine inspections. If suspected violations
are disclosed during the routine evaluation, a more intensive investigation should be
conducted.
A review of facility records should determine that recordkeeping requirements are being met.
In particular, the following questions should be answered:
• Is facility verifying data being collected as required by the permit?
• Is all required information available?
• Is the information current?
• Is the information being maintained for the required time period?
• Do the records reviewed indicate areas needing further investigation?
• Do the records show compliance?
• Are the records certified?
During the site inspection, the inspector does not have the authority to require the following:
• A specific organizational method for the facility records.
• Facility copies of the records or access to a copier. The inspector should be prepared to
make their own copies with a portable scanner/printer or plan to copy the records at a
professional copier.
Chapter 3 - Page 58
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B. EVALUATION PROCEDURES
VERIFICATION, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING EVALUATION PROCEDURES
During the inspection
During the facility site inspection, the inspector should verify the following requirements of the
permit:
• The number and location of discharges are as described in the permit.
• All discharges, if permitted, are in accordance with the general provisions of the permit,
such as no noxious odors, no visible entrained solids in discharge, no deposits at or
downstream of the outfall, no color change in the receiving stream, and no fish or
vegetation kills near the outfalls.
The inspector should review the permit to determine recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Throughout the inspection, the inspector should compare facility's operations
with the permit to verify that required permit activities are correct, current, and complete.
Obtain some of the information needed to verify the permit during the opening conference and
compare with the facility permit. This information includes the following:
• Correct name and address of facility
• Correct name and location of receiving waters
• Number and location of discharge points (if any)
• Principal products and production rates (where appropriate)
The inspector should check for records that will verify that notification has been made to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or to the state when: 1) discharges differ from those
stated in the permit, 2) a discharge violates the permit, and 3) a bypass has occurred. The
inspector should also check to ensure that the facility maintains the appropriate records for a
minimum of three years (or five years for sewage sludge). These records may include the
following:
• Sampling and analysis data:
- Dates, times, and locations of sampling
- Sample types collected
- Analytical methods and techniques
- Results of analyses
- Dates and times of analyses
- Name(s) of analytical and sampling personnel
Chapter 3 - Page 59
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Monitoring records:
- Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), including information on flow, pH, Dissolved
Oxygen (DO), etc., as required by permit. A blank DMR form is included in Appendix
L.
- Original charts from continuous monitoring instrumentation.
- Verification of the validity of the data on the DMRs. An inspector can perform this
verification by tracking the raw data from the laboratory bench sheets or other
databases to the final reported DMR entries.
• Laboratory records:
- Calibration and maintenance of equipment
- Calculations (i.e., on bench sheets or books)
- Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) analysis data
- Laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs)
- Results of DMR QA studies
• Facility operating records:
- Daily operating log.
- Summary of all laboratory tests run and other required measurements, including
reference test method used (Inspectors should reference the most recent version of
the Standard Methods or 40 CFR Part 136 methods for test procedures).
- Chemicals used (pounds of chlorine per day, etc.).
- Weather conditions (temperature, precipitation, etc.).
- Equipment maintenance completed and scheduled.
- Equipment downtime and failures.
- Spare parts inventory.
- Monitoring equipment calibration records.
• Treatment plant records (required under the Federal Construction Grants program):
- Plant Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
- Percent removal records
- "As built" engineering drawings
- Copy of construction specifications
- Equipment supplier manual
- Data cards (i.e., maintenance records) on all equipment
• Management records:
- Average monthly operating records
- Annual reports
- Emergency conditions (power failures, bypass, upsets, chlorine failure reports, etc.)
Chapter 3 - Page 60
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Pretreatment records:
- Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and industrial monitoring and reporting
requirements.
- Industrial user discharge data.
- Compliance status records (IU inspection reports, SNC evaluations, POTW sampling
information, etc.).
- POTW enforcement initiatives and Enforcement Response Plan.
- POTW procedures listed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2).
- Industrial waste survey information.
• Risk Management Plan (RMP)
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
• Self-inspection records
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
When required, a properly completed RMP, SWPPP, and/or SPCC Plan should be available. The
inspector also may gather information on the SPCC and forward this information to the
appropriate program office for follow-up action plans.
• Best Management Practices (BMPs) (where required).
• Two types of BMP plans are included in NPDES permits:
- BMP plans to minimize or prevent release of significant amounts of any toxic or
hazardous pollutants to public waters. The plans may discuss general operations and
maintenance of the plant, good housekeeping procedures on the facility grounds,
and other plans and procedures specific to best management of the facility.
- Site-specific BMP plans to address particular toxic or hazardous chemicals or other
conditions particular to the facility. Site-specific BMP may include procedures,
monitoring requirements, construction of barriers such as dikes and berms, or other
appropriate measures for solving specific problems.
In addition, inspectors should ensure that sludge records to verify compliance with 40 CFR
Part 503 are maintained for a minimum of five years. The facility needs to keep records to be
reviewed (such as sludge records and laboratory records) on-site for the inspector.
The inspector should document all inspection activities (see Chapter 2, Section E). Inadequacies,
discrepancies, or other problems disclosed during this review may warrant more intensive
investigation.
The inspector should validate (or obtain) accurate outfall locational data during the inspection.
Locational data includes the precise latitude and longitude of each outfall (including metadata
such as source, datum, precision, etc.). EPA collects this information as part of the EPA permit
applications for inclusion in ICIS-NPDES. Locational data are becoming increasingly critical for
Chapter 3 - Page 61
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Agency-wide geospatial applications, including everything from mapping to prioritizing
enforcement and permitting efforts.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE STATUS REVIEW
If the permit contains a compliance schedule or if the facility is under an enforcement action
with a compliance schedule, the inspector should determine:
• Whether the permittee is conforming to the compliance schedule and, if not, whether
final requirements will be achieved on time.
• The accuracy of reports relating to compliance schedules.
• The length of delay associated with a construction violation.
• Whether any schedule violations are beyond the control of the discharger.
• Whether requests for permit modifications are valid.
If the permit contains a compliance schedule, only review the schedule in detail if the need
becomes apparent during records review and preparation of the inspection plan. Actions to
review should include beginning new construction, contract and equipment orders,
authorization and financing arrangements, and/or attainment of operational status. The
specific compliance schedule actions are described below.
Construction Progress
The inspector must know whether contracts for labor and material have been fulfilled and
whether the permittee or the permittee's engineering consultant is monitoring progress. These
aspects are extremely important, particularly in plants where numerous contracts are likely for
labor and equipment.
If the permittee or the engineering consultant reports that construction or acquisition of
equipment is behind schedule, the inspector should:
• Ask to see the permittee's or the resident engineer's progress report and determine
whether the report indicates that the final compliance schedule required by the permit
can be met.
• If the report indicates that the final date will not be met, advise the permittee that the
compliance schedule of the NPDES permit requires the permittee to notify the permit-
issuing authority promptly of any possible delay in achieving compliance and of
measures taken to minimize the delay.
• Inquire whether the facility superintendent or chief operator and operating personnel
are receiving adequate training concerning the operational aspects of the new
treatment unit while construction is under way. They must be prepared to perform the
essential operating functions when the facility is placed in service.
Chapter 3 - Page 62
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Construction Contracts and Equipment Orders
The inspector should review the appropriate documents to determine whether the permittee
has obtained the necessary approval to begin construction. The inspector should note the start
and completion dates (or scheduled delivery dates in service or equipment contracts).
Authorization and Financing
If construction is incomplete, the inspector should determine whether the permittee has the
authority and financial capability (mortgage commitments, corporate resolution, etc.) to
complete the required structures.
Attainment of Operational Status
If construction has been completed but the facility is not yet operational, the inspector should
determine whether the facility is using appropriate procedures to ensure attainment of working
status at the earliest possible time. The inspector should verify the following:
• Appropriate self-monitoring procedures that the facility has initiated. It is especially
important that the result of operational and effluent quality monitoring be reviewed to
determine whether progress is being made toward optimum efficiency in each
treatment unit and in the entire plant.
• Appropriate recordkeeping procedures.
• Appropriate work schedules and assignments. (For municipal facilities, the O&M Manual
should provide essential guidance.)
POTW PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS REVIEW
The inspector must collect specific information to evaluate compliance with pretreatment
requirements. A summary of inspector procedures for this review is provided below and for
more detail see Chapter 9, "Pretreatment."
As part of the inspection, the inspector must collect information about the POTW's compliance
with its approved pretreatment program and applicable regulations, as well as the compliance
status of its industrial users (lUs) with categorical pretreatment standards or locally developed
discharge limitations. POTW's that do not have an approved pretreatment programs should
have pretreatment requirements in its permit, such as the requirement to notify the permitting
authority of new significant industrial users in its service area or requirements to prevent pass-
through and interference. The inspector should review POTW records to determine the
following:
• Whether all the contributing industries, including the number of significant industrial
users (SlUs) are accounted.
• Whether all lUs are properly identified and classified.
• Whether lUs have submitted required reports and notifications to the POTW. These
include baseline monitoring reports (BMRs), compliance schedule progress reports,
90-day compliance reports, periodic compliance reports, notifications of changed
Chapter 3 - Page 63
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
discharge, potential problem discharges, violation and resampling, and hazardous waste
discharge.
• Whether all the contributing lUs are in compliance with applicable standards, such as
categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, general and specific prohibitions, etc.
• Whether permits containing all required elements have been issued to significant lUs in
a timely manner.
• Whether inspections and sampling (including evaluation of the need for slug control
plans) of SlUs are conducted at the required frequency.
• Whether the POTW has notified all affected lUs of classification and applicable
standards and requirements, including Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
obligations.
• Whether appropriate enforcement actions have been taken against all noncompliant lUs
in accordance with the POTW's Enforcement Response Plan and whether the names of
all lUs in significant noncompliance are published at least annually.
• Whether contributing lUs with compliance schedules are meeting applicable schedule
deadlines and compliance schedule reporting requirements.
IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATIONS
The inspector should conduct an in-depth inspection of a permittee's records and reports to
substantiate a suspected violation; to verify self-monitoring data to use as corroborative
evidence in an enforcement action; or to confirm apparent sampling, analysis, or reporting
discrepancies discovered during the limited inspection. For example, discrepancies warrant an
in-depth review if the inspector:
• Suspects the discharge does not meet required standards and no definite operational
problems have been established.
• Suspects grossly inaccurate self-reporting data with recordkeeping procedures and/or
the filing of reports.
• Suspects the cursory review indicates omissions or laxity in the preparation of records.
• Suspects evidence of falsification of records
• Suspects laboratory review of analytical data indicates errors in QC or data
management.
Confer with supervisor for more guidance and assistance as needed in performing an in-depth
investigation.
In-depth Investigation Procedures
The following procedures should guide the inspector in conducting an in-depth investigation:
• Determine investigation objective. What is the specific purpose of the investigation?
• Determine information needed. What specific data will substantiate a violation or
respond to the investigation objective?
Chapter 3 - Page 64
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Determine data source. What records will contain these required data?
• Review inspection authority. Authority to inspect under section 308 is limited to those
records required by the permit/regulations.
• Inspect direct and indirect data sources. Examine records likely to provide the required
data directly. In the absence of direct data, use indirect sources of information to
develop a network of information relevant to the data being sought.
• Take statements from qualified facility personnel. See Chapter 2, Section E, for specific
procedures.
• Prepare documentation. Copy and identify all records relevant to the information being
sought. See Chapter 2, Section E, for specific procedures.
• Follow confidentiality procedures. Any record inspected may be claimed by the facility
as confidential. Treat such records in accordance with EPA procedures. See the
discussion on Confidential Business Information in Chapter 2, Section E.
C. VERIFICATION, RECORDKEEPING,
AND REPORTING EVALUATION CHECKLIST
This section provides an example of the type of checklist inspectors should use during
inspections. The checklist should capture facility information and whether permit conditions
are being met, as well as provide documentation for each suspected violation. The purpose of
such a checklist is to concisely and thoroughly keep track of all the necessary information.
Additionally, when required by regulations, inspectors should ensure records are certified.
A. PERMIT VERIFICATION
Facility Name and Mailing Address:
Brief Facility Description:
Permit Number and Facility Representative:
Inspection Date and Time, Inspector Names:
Yes
No
N/A
1. Inspection observations verify information contained in permit.
Yes
No
N/A
2. Current copy of permit is on-site.
Yes
No
N/A
3. Name and mailing address of permittee are correct.
Yes
No
N/A
4. Records accurately identify name and location of receiving waters.
Yes
No
N/A
5. Number and location of discharge points are as described in permit.
Yes
No
N/A
6. All discharges are permitted.
Yes
No
N/A
7. Facility is as described in permit.
Chapter 3 - Page 65
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Yes
No
N/A
8. Notification was given to EPA/state of new, different, or increased discharges.
Yes
No
N/A
9. Facility maintains accurate records of influent volume, when appropriate.
Yes
No
N/A
10. The facility used Federal Construction Grant funds to build the plant.
B. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING EVALUATION
Yes
No
N/A
1. Maintain records and reports as required by permit.
Yes
No
N/A
2. All required information is available, complete, and current.
Yes
No
N/A
3. Information is maintained for three years (or five years for sewage sludge).
Yes
No
N/A
4. If the facility monitors more frequently than required by permit (using approved
methods), these are results reported.
5. Analytical results are consistent with data reported on DMRs:
Yes
No
N/A
a. The data is transcribed accurately from the bench sheets to the DMRs.
Yes
No
N/A
b. The calculations are performed properly (including loading, averages, etc.).
6. Sampling and analyses data include:
Yes
No
N/A
a. Dates, times, and location of sampling.
Yes
No
N/A
b. Sample types collected.
Yes
No
N/A
c. Instantaneous flow at grab sample stations.
Yes
No
N/A
d. Name of individual performing sampling.
Yes
No
N/A
e. Analytical methods and techniques.
Yes
No
N/A
f. Results of analyses and calibration.
Yes
No
N/A
g. Dates and times of analyses.
Yes
No
N/A
h. Name of person performing analyses.
7. Monitoring records include:
Yes
No
N/A
a. Flow, pH, DO, etc., as required by permit.
Yes
No
N/A
b. Monitoring charts maintained for three years (or five years for sewage
sludge).
Yes
No
N/A
c. Flowmeter calibration records maintained.
Yes
No
N/A
d. Locational data (latitude and longitude of each outfall).
Yes
No
N/A
8. Laboratory equipment calibration and maintenance records are adequate.
9. Treatment plant records include (Note—these records are only required for
facilities built with Federal Construction Grant Funds):
Yes
No
N/A
a. O&M Manual.
Yes
No
N/A
b. Percent removal records.
Yes
No
N/A
c. "As-built" engineering drawings.
Yes
No
N/A
d. Construction specifications.
Yes
No
N/A
e. Schedules and dates of equipment maintenance repairs.
Yes
No
N/A
f. Equipment supplies manual.
Yes
No
N/A
g. Equipment data cards.
10. Management records include:
Chapter 3 - Page 66
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Yes
No
N/A
a. Average monthly operating records.
Yes
No
N/A
b. Annual reports.
Yes
No
N/A
c. Emergency conditions.
11. Pretreatment records contain inventory of industrial waste contributors,
including:
Yes
No
N/A
a. Monitoring data.
Yes
No
N/A
b. Inspection reports.
Yes
No
N/A
c. Compliance status records.
Yes
No
N/A
d. Enforcement actions.
C. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE STATUS REVIEW
Yes
No
N/A
1. Permittee is meeting or has met compliance schedule.
Yes
No
N/A
2. Permittee has obtained necessary approvals to begin construction.
Yes
No
N/A
3. Financial arrangements are complete.
Yes
No
N/A
4. Executed contracts for engineering services.
Yes
No
N/A
5. Completed design plans and specifications.
Yes
No
N/A
6. Construction has begun.
Yes
No
N/A
7. Facility superintendent/chief operator and operating personnel have received
adequate training on use of the new treatment unit.
Yes
No
N/A
8. Construction is on schedule.
Yes
No
N/A
9. Equipment acquisition is on schedule.
Yes
No
N/A
10. Facility has completed construction.
Yes
No
N/A
11. Operational startup has begun.
Yes
No
N/A
12. Permittee has requested an extension of time.
D. POTW PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS REVIEW
Yes
No
N/A
THE FACILITY IS SUBJECT TO PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS.
1. Status of POTW pretreatment program:
Yes
No
N/A
a. EPA approved the POTW pretreatment program. (If not, is approval in
progress?)
Yes
No
N/A
b. The POTW is in compliance with the pretreatment program compliance
schedule. (If not, note why, what is due, and intent of the POTW to remedy.)
2. Status of Compliance with Categorical Pretreatment Standards.
Yes
No
N/A
a. How many POTW lUs, federal or state, are subject to pretreatment
standards?
Yes
No
N/A
b. Are these lUs aware of their responsibility to comply with applicable
standards?
Yes
No
N/A
c. Has the facility submitted BMRs (403.12) for these industries?
Yes
No
N/A
i. Have categorical lUs in noncompliance (on BMR reports) submitted
compliance schedules?
Chapter 3 - Page 67
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Yes
No
N/A
ii. How many categorical lUs on compliance schedules are meeting the
schedule deadlines?
Yes
No
N/A
d. If the compliance deadline has passed, have all lUs submitted 90-day
compliance reports?
Yes
No
N/A
e. Are all categorical lUs submitting the required semiannual report?
Yes
No
N/A
f. Are all new industrial discharges in compliance with new source
pretreatment standards?
Yes
No
N/A
g. Has the POTW submitted an annual pretreatment report?
Yes
No
N/A
h. Has the POTW taken enforcement action against noncomplying lUs?
Yes
No
N/A
i. Is the POTW conducting inspections of industrial contributors?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Are the lUs subject to Prohibited Limits (403.5) and Local Limits more stringent
than EPA in compliance? (If not, explain why, including need for revision of
limits.)
Document any issues below:
Chapter 3 - Page 68
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 4 -
FACILITY SITE REVIEW—WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
Contents
A. Objectives 70
B. Physical Inspection of the Facility 70
General Conditions in Overall Plant 72
Wastewater Collection System 73
Preliminary Treatment at the Headworks 73
Primary Clarifier 74
Secondary Biological Treatment Units 75
Secondary Clarifier 76
Advanced Physical Treatment Units 76
Disinfection 78
Sludge Handling 79
Polishing Ponds orTanks 82
Plant Effluent 82
Flow Measurement 82
Chemical Treatment Units 83
Standby Power and Alarms 83
General Housekeeping 83
Production Changes 83
C. Permit Compliance and Operation and Maintenance Evaluation 84
Compliance Evaluation 84
Operation Evaluation 85
Maintenance Evaluation 91
D. References 92
E. Facility Site Review Checklist 94
List of Tables
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions 86
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 4-1. General Wastewater Treatment Flow Diagram 97
Chapter 4 - Page 69
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of a facility site review are to:
• Assess the physical conditions of the facility's current treatment processes and
operations.
• Evaluate the permittee's operation and maintenance activities that impact plant
performance.
• Check the completeness and accuracy of the permittee's performance/compliance
records.
• Determine whether the treatment units are achieving the required treatment
efficiencies.
To accomplish this, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) inspector should
conduct a physical inspection of the facility (i.e., site survey), interview various levels of
management and staff, and review facility records.
The information in this chapter is based on a comprehensive inspection at a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW). The information is applicable to Wastewater Treatment Plants
(WWTPs). This chapter includes an example of a Facility Site Review Checklist at the end of this
chapter.
_ PlIYSl(IAL'iNSPHC:;riON'()F'VriTH''FACHJ;rY
This section pertains to inspections of WWTPs. To conduct a proper NPDES inspection the
inspector must fully understand the wastewater treatment processes used at the facility and
how each process fits into the overall treatment scheme. A General Wastewater Treatment
Plant Flow Diagram is included at the end of this chapter (
Exhibit 4-1).
The inspector should conduct an examination of process treatment units, sampling and flow
monitoring equipment, outfalls, and the receiving stream, particularly focusing on areas of the
permittee's premises where pollutants are generated, pumped, conveyed, treated, stored, or
disposed of. As the inspector becomes more knowledgeable about the facility being inspected,
they should focus on areas that are likely to impact permit compliance and evaluate overall
performance of the treatment facility. Inspectors should not enter confined spaces during the
inspection of the facility unless they are properly training for confined space entry procedures.
During the inspection, the inspector should pay attention to the operational factors listed
below and carefully document all the observations.:
• Influent characteristics, including:
- Appearance (color, odor, etc.)
- Combined sewer loads
Chapter 4 - Page 70
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Infiltration/inflow
- Industrial contributions
- Diurnal/seasonal loading variations
• Process control and settings
• Unit operations including supply of treatment chemicals
• Equipment design and current operating conditions
• Maintenance and operation staff
• Safety controls and equipment
• Effluent characteristics, including:
- Appearance of discharge
- Receiving stream appearance including any staining, deposits, or eutrophication
- Evidence of toxicity of the discharge
• Other conditions particular to the plant
The inspector should evaluate the facility in terms of solids management, looking for evidence
of excessive solids levels in clarifiers and sludge thickeners, insufficient solids wasting
capabilities, the need for temporary sludge holding tanks, dewatering systems such as belt
presses out of service, and sludge drying beds with excessive amounts of sludge. The
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Field Manual for Performance Evaluation and
Trouble Shooting at Municipal Wastewater Facilities (EPA, 1978) is a good reference for
operational characteristics of plants. Additional resources for inspectors to learn more about
wastewater treatment processes and facilities are provided at the end of this chapter in
Section D, "References."
The physical inspection, along with staff interviews and record reviews (discussed in
subsequent sections of this chapter), may lead the inspector to determine:
• Whether a major facility design problem requires an engineering solution.
• Whether problems can be solved through proper operation and maintenance of the
treatment facilities.
• Whether periodic equipment malfunctions at the facility indicate the need for
equipment overhaul or replacement.
When conducting the inspection, the inspector should be aware of and look for physical
conditions that indicate past, existing, or potential problems. Conditions to look for in the plant
(generally and in specific processes) are listed in the following subsections. The presence of
these conditions will give the inspector an idea of the types of problems present, the parts of
the treatment process causing the problems, and the potential solution to existing problems.
Chapter 4 - Page 71
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
GENERAL CONDITIONS IN OVERALL PLANT
General Indicators
• Suspected poor water quality of the effluent discharge.
• Excessive scum buildup; grease, foam, or floating sludge in clarifiers; high sludge blanket
levels in the secondary clarifiers, or excessively high solids inventories in the aeration
basins (unusually high mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS).
• Sludge washout occurrences, or any other ineffective or inadequate sludge wasting
capabilities.
• Hydraulic overload caused by storms, discharges of cooling water, or undersized facility
or process.
• Noxious odors in wet wells and grit chambers and around aerobic and anaerobic
biological units, scum removal devices, and sludge handling and treatment facilities.
• Evidence of severe corrosion at the treatment plant and in the collection system.
• Discoloration of the ground or a strong chemical smell may indicate past spills at the
plant; further investigation of spills may be warranted.
• Vital treatment units out of service for repairs. Determine when the units went out of
service, the type of failure, and when they will be put back in service.
• Excessive noise from process or treatment equipment.
• Any unusual equipment intended to correct operation problems (e.g., special pumps,
floating aerators in diffused air systems, chemical feeders, temporary construction or
structures, or any improvised system).
• Ruptures in chemical feed lines.
Flow Indicators
• Surging of influent lines, overflow weirs, and other structures.
• Hydraulically overloaded process or equipment.
• Flow through bypass channels.
• Overflows at alternative discharge points, channels, or other areas.
• Excessive septage dumping by septic tank pumpers.
• Flow from unknown source or origin.
• Open-ended pipes that appear to originate in a process or storage area and periodically
discharge to the ground or to surface water. Although these pipes have been
disconnected from a closed system or otherwise removed from service, they can still be
connected to a discharge source.
• Flow charts indicating acute Infiltration and Inflow (l/l) problems following rain events.
Chapter 4 - Page 72
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Unusual Waste Indicators
• Collected screenings, slurries, sludges, waste piles, or byproducts of treatment. Their
disposal, including runoff of any water, must be such that none enters navigable waters
or their tributaries.
• Improper or lack of recycling of filtrates and supernatants from sludge dewatering and
treatment.
• Improper storage of chemicals and hazardous substances with attention to the proper
diking of chemicals and hazardous substances and segregation of incompatible
chemicals. Generally, spill containment should be such that the dike could contain the
contents of the largest tank.
• Spills or mishandling of chemicals.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Piping/Transport
• Degrading quality of piping material. Most commonly used materials are ductile iron,
concrete, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Pumping Station
• Dangerously high wet well levels at the pump station.
• Malfunctioning alarm system to notify of low-high wet well levels, pump failure, and
power failure.
• Inadequate pumping capacity when wet well levels are high.
• Inoperable pumps.
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT AT THE HEADWORKS
Screening
• Spacing of screening bars outside the range of 0.25 to 2.0 inches
• Surcharge conditions in the influent sewer lines
• Excessive screen clogging
• Excessive buildup of debris against screen
• Oil and grease buildup
• Excessive scouring velocities through the screen during cleaning
• Improper disposal of screened material
• Excessive odors
• Pass through of grease and debris that shows up in the final effluent
Shredding/Grinding
• Blockage in sludge pumps or lines
• Bypass of shredding/grinding equipment
• Equipment removed or inoperable
Chapter 4 - Page 73
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Grit Removal
• Velocity-controlled grit removal processes with wastewater velocity exceeding or
significantly less than 1 foot per second.
• Grit chamber clogged or subject to odors.
• Clogging in pipes and sedimentation basin sludge hoppers.
• Less than typical grit accumulation in subsequent processes.
• Inoperable air diffusers leading to excessive organic content of grit.
• Wear of grit removal/handling equipment.
• Excessive odors in grit removal area.
Influent Pumping
• Inadequate pumping capacity during periods of high influent flow
• Inoperable pumps
Flow Equalization
• Equalization tank never empty
• Excessive odors
• Inoperable aerators, if aerated
• Ability to bypass directly to surface water
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
General Indicators
• Excessive gas bubbles or grease on surface
• Black and odorous wastewater
• Poor removal of suspended solids in primary clarifier
• Excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier
• Unlevel discharge weirs
• Fouling of overflow weirs
• Evidence of short circuiting
• Ineffective scum rake
• Scum overflow or lack of adequate scum disposal, full scum pit
• Excessive floating sludge and/or scum (high sludge blanket level)
• Excessive sludge on bottom, inadequate sludge removal
• Noisy sludge scraper drive
• Broken sludge scraper equipment
• Poor maintenance of sludge pumps (leaking) or pump gallery
Chapter 4 - Page 74
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SECONDARY BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT UNITS
Trickling Filter/Activated Biofilters
• Filter ponding (indicating clogged media)
• Dried or collapsed media
• Leak at center column of filter's distribution arms
• Uneven distribution of flow on filter surface
• Uneven or discolored growth
• Excessive growth of biomass
• Excessive sloughing of growth
• Odor
• Clogging of trickling filter's distribution arm orifices
• Restricted rotation of distribution arms
• Filter flies, worms, or snails
• Ice buildup on trickling filter media or distribution arms
• Inappropriate recirculation rates of filter or secondary effluent
Rotating Biological Contactors
• Odor
• Development of white biomass on rotating biological contactor (RBC) media
• Excessive sloughing of growth
• Excessive breakage of rotating disks or shafts in RBC units
• Shaft, bearing, drive gear, or motor failure
• Solids accumulation in RBC units
Activated Sludge Tanks
• Excessive breakage of paddles on brush aerators.
• Shaft, bearing, drive gear, or motor failure on disk or brush aerators.
• Dead spots in aeration tanks.
• Use of floating aerators in basins designed with bottom air diffusers.
• Failure of surface aerators.
• Inoperative air compressors.
• Air rising unevenly.
• Excessive air leaks in compressed air piping.
• Dark mixed liquor in aeration tank (grey or black).
• Dark foam or bad odor on aeration tanks.
• Stable dark tan foam on aeration tanks that sprays cannot break up.
• Thick billows of white, sudsy foam on aeration tank.
Chapter 4 - Page 75
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Low Dissolved Oxygen (DO, < 1.0 mg/l) in aeration tank (except in areas used for
denitrification).
• Inadequate return activated sludge rates.
• Solids-related measurements outside of expected range (e.g., MLSS and/or Mixed Liquor
Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS) concentration, Food to Mass ratio (F:M), sludge age,
or mean cell residence time).
Stabilization Ponds/Lagoons
• Trees growing on the bank or within the root zone distance from the bank
• Erosion of stabilization pond bank or dike
• Excessive foliage or animal burrows in pond bank or dike
• Excessive weeds in stabilization ponds
• Foaming and spray in aerated lagoon
• Dead fish or aquatic organisms
• Buildup of solids around influent pipe
• Excessive scum on surface
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
General Indicators
• Excessive gas bubbles on surface.
• Fouling of overflow weirs.
• Unlevel overflow weirs.
• Evidence of short circuiting.
• Excessive buildup of solids in center well of circular clarifier.
• Deflocculation in clarifier.
• Pin floe in overflow.
• Ineffective scum rake.
• Floating sludge on surface; rising sludge or bulking sludge.
• Billowing sludge.
• Excessively high sludge blanket.
• Clogged sludge withdrawal ports on secondary clarifier for either sludge wasting or
sludge return.
• Unequal sludge blanket levels in parallel units.
• Inappropriate return and wasting rates.
• Poor maintenance of sludge pumps (leaking) or pump gallery.
ADVANCED PHYSICAL TREATMENT UNITS
Filtration
• Filter surface clogging
Chapter 4 - Page 76
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Short filter run
• Air displacement of gravel media
• Formation of mud balls in filter media
• Air binding of filter media
• Loss of filter media during backwashing
• Recycled filter backwash water exceeding 5 percent
• Effluent TSS and BOD levels exceeding 10 mg/L
• Excessive effluent turbidity
Microscreening
• Erratic rotation of microscreen drums
• Plugging
• Drive system noisy or overheating
• Backwash exceeding 5 percent of flow treated
Activated Carbon Adsorption
• Excessive biological growth resulting in strong odor
• pH above 9.0 standard units (S.U.)
• Plugged carbon pores
• Presence of carbon dust in effluent
• Excessive carbon regeneration
Nitrification
• Hydraulic overload
• Inadequate pH control/chemical addition
• Low DO (<2 mg/L) in the aeration basin
• Pin floe in final effluent
• Sludge rising because of gasification in secondary clarifier
Denitrification
• Air temperature below 15°C
• pH below 6.0 S.U. or above 8.0 S.U.
• Excessive methanol or other chemical additions
• Septic sludge conditions.
Ammonia Stripping
• Excessive hydraulic loading rate
• Tower packing coated with calcium carbonate
• pH below 10.8 S.U.
• Inadequate tower packing depth
Chapter 4 - Page 77
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Air temperature below 65°F (18 °C)
DISINFECTION
Chlorination
• Sludge buildup in contact chamber
• Gas bubbles
• Inadequate retention time (typically 30 minutes at peak flow conditions)
• Floating scum and/or solids
• Evidence of short circuiting (poor tank baffling)
• Inadequate ventilation of chlorine feeding room and storage area
• High temperatures in chlorination rooms
• Improper operation of automatic feed or feedback control
• Excessive foaming downstream
• Evidence of toxicity downstream (dead fish, other dead organisms)
• Improper chlorine feed, storage, and reserve supply
• Leak detection equipment is tied into the plant alarm system
• Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) available on-site
• Proper training in use of SCBA
• Lack emergency SOP and/or RMP (Risk Management Plan)
• No chlorine repair kit available
Dechlorination
• Improper storage of sulfur dioxide cylinders.
• Inadequate ventilation of sulfur dioxide feeding room.
• Automatic sulfur dioxide feed or feedback control not operating properly.
• Depressed DO after dechlorination.
• Improper storage and mixture of sodium metabisulfite containers.
• Reduced efficiency of activated carbon dechlorination units because of organic and
inorganic compound interference.
• No SCBAs available on-site.
• Improper training in use of SCBA.
• No emergency SOP and/or RMP.
Ultraviolet (UV)
• Quartz sleeves not kept clean
• Bulbs are not all operational
• Effluent has high turbidity
• Fecal coliform tests show inadequate bacterial kill
Chapter 4 - Page 78
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SLUDGE HANDLING
General Indicators
• The facility does not waste sludge.
• Inadequate sludge removal from clarifiers or thickeners.
• Poor dewatering characteristics of thermal treated sludge.
• Thickened sludge too thin.
• Fouling of overflow weirs on gravity thickeners.
• Air flotation skimmer blade binding on beaching plate.
• Unordinary down time of sludge treatment units.
• Sludge disposal inadequate to keep treatment system in balance - storing excess sludge
inventory within other treatment units such as activated sludge basin, or clarifiers due
to inadequate sludge wasting capabilities.
• Mass balance inappropriate (ratio of sludge wasted should be 0.65-0.85 lbs. of sludge
per lb. of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) removed).
• Sludge decant or return flows high in solids.
• Odors.
• Improper loading rates.
• Lack of adequate process control (unit removal efficiencies, DO, sludge age, F:M ratio,
etc.).
Sludge Anaerobic Digestion
• Inoperative mechanical or gas mixers
• Inoperative sludge heater or low temperature
• Inadequate gas production
• Unexpected gas composition
• Floating cover of digester tilting
• Inoperative gas burner
• Supernatant emitting a sour odor from either primary or secondary digester
• Excessive suspended solids in supernatant
• Supernatant recycle overloading the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
• pH problems
Sludge Aerobic Digestion
• Excessive foaming in tank
• Objectionable odor in aerobically digested sludge
• Insufficient dissolved oxygen in digester
• Digester overloaded
• Clogging of diffusers in digester
• Mechanical aerator failure in digester
Chapter 4 - Page 79
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Inadequate supernatant removal from sludge lagoons
• Solids accumulation in tank
Sludge Dewatering
• Drying beds
- Poor sludge distribution on drying beds
- Vegetation in drying beds (unless reed design)
- Dry sludge remaining in drying beds (storage)
- Inadequate drying time on drying beds
- Some unused drying beds
- Dry sludge stacked around drying beds where runoff may enter navigable waters
- Filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to front of plant
- Inadequate sludge wasting capabilities as indicated by all beds being full, and high
solids inventory within the treatment units
• Centrifuge
- Excessive solids in fluid phase of sample after centrifugation
- Inadequate dryness of centrifugal sludge cake
- Excessive vibration or other mechanical problems
• Filter press
- High level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters
- Thin filter cake caused by poor dewatering
- Vacuum filter cloth binding
- Low vacuum on filter
- Improperly cleaned vacuum filter media
- Sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press
- Excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake
- Difficult cake discharge from filter presses
- Filter cake sticks to solids-conveying equipment of filter press
- Frequent media binding of plate filter press
- Sludge blowing out of filter press
- Insufficient run time of sludge dewatering equipment
Sludge Stabilization
• Lagoon
- Objectionable odor from sludge lagoon
- Damage to dikes around sludge drying lagoons
- Unlined sludge lagoons
Chapter 4 - Page 80
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Sludge lagoons full, overflowing sludge back to plant or to natural drainage
- Deep rooted vegetation on dikes or berms
• Composting
- Piles that give off foul odor
- Inoperable blower
- Temperature does not reach 122-140°F (50-60°C)
- Uncontrolled stormwater runoff
• Heat drying/pelletizing
- Excess moisture in sludge feed
- Insufficient air flow or drying temperature achieved
- Inadequate drying of final product (excess moisture in final product)
- Excess odors associated with treatment area
- Excess odors associated with treated product
• Alkaline stabilization
- Insufficient amount of lime (or other alkaline additive) used to ensure pH is raised
sufficiently.
- Inadequate mixing provided to ensure good contact of lime (or other alkaline
additive) with sludge solids.
- pH problems.
- Excess odors associated with treatment area.
- Excess odors associated with treated product.
- Excessive lime dust around treatment equipment.
• Incineration
- Objectionable odors associated with treatment area
- Evidence of excessive ash around unit
- Visible smoke or dust exhaust from unit
- Noncompliance with air permit parameters
- Spilling or leaking sludge from dewatered sludge transfer equipment
• Sludge disposal
- Sludge constituents not analyzed before disposal
- Sludge not transported in appropriate and approved vehicle
- Surface runoff of sludge at land application site
- Liquid sludge (i.e., less than 10 percent solids) applied to landfill site
- Sludge fails paint filter test
- Inadequate coverage of sludge in subsurface plow injection system
Chapter 4 - Page 81
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Objectionable odors generated at land application site
- Slow drying of soil-sludge mixture in subsurface injection system
- Sludge pooling at land application sites
- Breeding flies, vectors, and/or odors at landfill site
- Inadequate burial of sludge at landfill site
- Excessive erosion at sludge sites
- Sludge disposed of in unpermitted sites
- Disposal not in accordance with federal, state, or local regulations
- Sludge lagoons full and overflowing
- Inadequate runoff control at landfill or land application sites
POLISHING PONDS OR TANKS
• Objectionable odor, excessive foam, floating solids, or oil sheens in polishing ponds or
tanks.
• Solids or scum accumulations in tank or at side of pond.
• Evidence of bypassed polishing ponds or tanks.
PLANT EFFLUENT
• Excessive suspended solids, turbidity, foam, grease, scum, color, and other macroscopic
particulate matter present.
• Potential toxicity (dead fish, dead plants at discharge).
• Stained sediments in receiving waters.
• Sludge in the receiving water, anaerobic sediments, and blood worms.
• Low dissolved oxygen content.
• Eutrophication.
FLOW MEASUREMENT
• Improper placement of flow measurement device.
• Flow totalizer not calibrated.
• Buildup of solids in flume or weir.
• Broken or cracked flume or weir.
• Improperly functioning magnetic flowmeter.
• Clogged or broken stilling wells.
• Weir plate edge corroded or damaged; i.e., not sharp edged (< 1/8"), or not level.
• System not capable of measuring maximum flow.
• Sizing of system adequate to handle flow range.
• Flow measurement error greater than ± 10 percent.
• Flow measurement that includes all wastewater discharged and does not include
wastestreams that are recirculated back to the treatment plant.
Chapter 4 - Page 82
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHEMICAL TREATMENT UNITS
• Evidence of heavy corrosion
• No portion-measuring device at feed unit
• pH measuring not evident at pH adjustment tank
• Chemicals left open when they should be closed
• Chemicals outdated
• Chemical containers stored improperly or hazardously
• Inappropriately stored, moved, or handled chemical tank cars (trucks or train)
• Spilled dry chemicals on floor between storage area and feed units
• Improperly disposed of empty chemical containers
• Large containers handled improperly, container transfer equipment not maintained
• No appropriate sized berms or dikes at liquid chemical feed units
• Inadequate supply of chemicals
• Chemical dust covering feed unit area or, storage and transfer areas
• Use of an inappropriate coagulant
• Improperly stored or handled glass carboys (acid storage)
STANDBY POWER AND ALARMS
• Emergency generator with no automatic switch-over.
• Generator not regularly checked and exercised.
• No separate electrical substation feed line.
• Portable generators with quick connects.
• Portion of plant operated by the standby power.
• Treatment units and headworks equipped with alarms to notify operations staff of unit
failure or loss of power.
• System for Supervisory Control and Data Available (SCADA):
- Only large facilities tend to have this equipment.
- SCADA to monitor and operate lift station in the collection system.
GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING
• Facility control panel in disrepair or not in use
• Wastewater pipelines not clearly distinguished from product pipelines
• Spills or leaks in dry areas not remediated in a timely manner
PRODUCTION CHANGES
• For a POTW, change in service area.
• For a POTW, increase or decrease in intake flows from industrial, commercial, or
domestic sectors.
Chapter 4 - Page 83
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• For an IU, change in production volume.
• For an IU, large alteration of processes (inputs, temperature, etc.).
_ PHRMrr COMPLIANCE ANl)l)!:}HRA'ri()N
AND MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
In addition to the physical inspection of the plant, inspectors should also evaluate the operation
and maintenance of the plant equipment and the facility's compliance with their permit
requirements. When the physical inspection findings indicate that specific practices of the
facility contribute to or cause problems, the inspector should detail the problems and use that
information to evaluate the operation and maintenance procedures.
Inspectors should interview various staff to provide a better idea of what is happening on-site.
If conflicting information is received during staff interviews, make sure to clarify this
information before leaving the site. If the staff does not clearly answer a question, rephrase the
question and ask it later during the inspection. The inspector should interview facility staff to:
• Gather background information.
• Determine normal operation and maintenance procedures.
• Evaluate knowledge and ability.
• Determine the number of operation, maintenance, laboratory, and other essential staff.
The inspector should also review the following records as needed:
• Operator logs
• Operations and maintenance records
• Operations and maintenance manual
• Sampling and laboratory records
• Monitoring reports
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION
The inspector should bring to the inspection a few submitted Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) to compare with the monitoring reports kept on-site. To evaluate compliance with
permit requirements, the inspector should:
• Compare monitoring report data to the permit requirements and verify that all non-
compliance has been reported, monitoring requirements have been met, and analysis is
in accordance with permit requirements.
• Compare the laboratory data to reported data to ensure transcription errors have not
occurred and ensure all data on the DMR is accurate.
• Evaluate laboratory analytical procedures and methods to ensure the accuracy of the
effluent discharge data.
• Randomly check calculations to evaluate accuracy of reported data.
Chapter 4 - Page 84
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
OPERATION EVALUATION
Operating factors affecting plant performance range from qualitative factors such as the skills
and aptitudes of operators (e.g., process knowledge and general aptitude), to physical
deficiencies in laboratory equipment or a lack of flexibility in process equipment. The
evaluation of operation functions must focus on wastewater treatment, sludge
treatment/disposal, and laboratory analysis. The evaluation should be based on the following
topics:
• Policies and procedures
• Organization
• Staffing and training
• Planning
• Management controls
Although each of the preceding evaluation topics should be covered in the review of operation
functions, the four areas discussed in the following paragraphs should particularly concern the
inspector:
Policies and Procedures
Written operating procedures and standard reference texts enable the operator to achieve
efficient plant operation. The operations manual prepared for the facility is the most important
reference that an inspector should review when evaluating plant policies and procedures. Other
reference materials relating to operations that should be available to the operator include
manufacturers' literature, publications by professional organizations (e.g., the Water
Environment Federation), and EPA publications.
Staffing and Training
Even the best engineered facility cannot perform to its potential without enough capable and
qualified staff. The inspector must consider the abilities and limitations of the operating staff.
Most states have some type of certification program for operators. The inspector may inquire
about how many of the staff has been trained and to what degree staff is certified. Staff
interviews may include the individual in charge of the overall operation, the chief operator,
specific unit process operators, and laboratory staff. The inspector should ascertain the hours
the facility is manned and unmanned. If the facility is regularly unmanned, the inspector should
inquire about unit alarms, in the event of equipment failure or loss of power, alarm telemetry
or autodialers, facility response procedures and whether there have been any unit bypasses as
a result of the plant being unmanned.
Health and Safety
At all times, the facility should follow safe operating procedures. Employees must be trained in
emergency shut-down, fire control, and spill response procedures, as well as in the use of
safety equipment, safe sampling techniques, and safe handling of chemicals and wastes.
Employees should not enter confined spaces unless properly trained and equipped. Managers
must be aware of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Right-to-Know
Chapter 4 - Page 85
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
laws regarding potentially dangerous chemicals in the workplace. This law specifically requires a
written hazard communication program, labeling of chemicals, and the availability of material
safety data sheets to employees upon request. Safety practices specified in the NPDES permit
should be verified by the inspector, however, if safety concerns unrelated to the permit are
observed, the facility should be referred to OSHA to address the concern.
Management Controls
Monitoring practices are a good indicator of both the emphasis placed on operations and the
operator's understanding of process controls. Factors affecting a facility's monitoring
capabilities include the following:
• The sampling program
• Performance testing
• Analytical capabilities
• Recordkeeping practices
An effective process control program is essential to a treatment facility's optimal performance.
In most cases, the inspector will rely on discussions with the plant superintendent and/or
operators to supplement available records and the technical evaluation. The key considerations
for effective process controls include the following:
• Process control data
• Process knowledge of the operators
• The basis for the control practices
• Implementation of the control practices
• Past performance
• Operator emphasis on controls
• Recordkeeping
Table 4-1 presents the basic review questions that an inspector should ask in evaluating
operation functions.
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions
Policies and Procedures
• Is there a formal or informal set of policies for facility operations?
• Do policies address:
— Compliance with permit?
— Maintaining process controls?
— Quality control?
— Preventive maintenance?
• Is there a set of standard procedures to implement these policies?
• Are the procedures written or informal?
Chapter 4 - Page 86
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions
•
Do the procedures consider the following areas?
— Collection system —
Operating procedures
— Emergency —
Process control
— Energy conservation —
Pumping stations
— Equipment record system —
Safety
— Inventory management —
Sludge disposal
— Labor relations scheduling —
Treatment chemical supply
— Laboratory —
Treatment process
— Maintenance planning —
Work orders
— Monitoring
•
Are the procedures followed?
Organization
•
Is there an organizational plan (or chart) for operations?
•
Does the plan include:
— Delegation of responsibility and authority?
— Job descriptions?
— Interaction with other functions (such as maintenance)?
•
Is the plan formal or informal?
•
Does staff have access to and understand the plan?
•
Does the facility follow the plan?
•
Is the plan consistent with policies and procedures?
— Is the plan flexible?
— Can it handle emergency situations?
— Does the plan clearly define lines of authority and responsibility in the following
subfunctional areas?
¦ Laboratory ¦
Sludge disposal
¦ Monitoring practices ¦
Buildings and grounds
¦ Process control ¦
Collection system
¦ Mechanical ¦
Automotive
¦ Instruments ¦
Pumping stations
¦ Electrical ¦
Supplies and spare parts
Staffing
•
Is there an adequate number of staff to achieve policies and procedures?
•
Are staff members adequately qualified for their duties and responsibilities by demonstrating
the following:
— Certification
— Qualifications
- Ability
Chapter 4 - Page 87
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions
Job performance
— Understanding of treatment processes
• Is staff used effectively to support plant activities?
• Has the potential for borrowing personnel from other plants been considered?
• Are training procedures followed for:
— Orientation of new staff?
— Training new operators?
— Training new supervisors?
— Continuing training of existing staff?
— Cross training staff between plant jobs needing more staff/support?
• Which of the following training procedures are used?
— Formal classroom
— Home study
— On-the-job training
— Participation in professional organization
• Does the training program provide specific instruction for the following operations and
maintenance activities?
— Automotive
— Building maintenance
— Electrical
— Emergency procedures
— Equipment troubleshooting
— Handling personnel problems
— Instrumentation
• Does management encourage staff motivation?
• Does management support its first-line supervisors?
• Is staff motivation maintained through any of the following tools?
— Encouragement for training
— Job recognition
— Job security
— Promotional opportunities
— Salary incentives
— Working environment
Operations
• How does the facility establish operating schedules?
• Do schedules attempt to attain optimum staff utilization?
• Are line supervisors included in manpower scheduling?
• Are staff involved in and/or informed of manpower planning?
• Is there sufficient long-term planning for staff replacement and system changes?
Inventory control
Laboratory procedures
Mechanical
Monitoring practices
Safety
Treatment processes
Chapter 4 - Page 88
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions
• Are there procedures in manpower staffing for emergency situations?
• How are process control changes initiated?
• How do process control changes interact with management controls?
• How are laboratory results used in process control?
• Are there emergency plans for treatment control?
• Is there an effective energy management plan? Is the plan used?
• To what extent are operations personnel involved in the budget process?
• Do budgets adequately identify and justify the cost components of operations?
• Are future budgets based on current and anticipated operating conditions?
• Do operating and capital budget limits constrain operations?
• Can budget line items be adjusted to reflect actual operating conditions?
Maintenance
• Are maintenance activities planned? Is the planning formal or informal?
• Does the facility have sufficient management controls to affect realistic planning and
scheduling? If the controls exist, are they used?
• Are operating variables exploited to simplify maintenance efforts?
• To what extent are the supply and spare part inventories planned in conjunction with
maintenance activities?
• Have minimum and maximum levels been established for all inventory items?
• Does the facility have a maintenance emergency plan?
• Is the maintenance emergency plan current? Is the staff knowledgeable about emergency
procedures?
• Does a plan exist for returning to the preventive maintenance mode following an emergency?
• Are preventive maintenance tasks scheduled in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations?
• Is adequate time allowed for corrective maintenance?
• Are basic maintenance practices (preventive and corrective) and frequencies reviewed for
cost-effectiveness?
• Do the management controls provide sufficient information for accurate budget preparation?
• Does the maintenance department receive feedback on cost performance to facilitate future
budget preparation?
• To what extent are maintenance personnel involved in the budget process?
• Do budgets adequately identify and justify the cost components of maintenance?
• Are future budgets based on current and anticipated operating and maintenance conditions?
• Do maintenance and capital budget limits constrain preventive maintenance (equipment
replacement and improvements)?
• Does the maintenance department receive adequate feedback on cost performance?
• Can budget line items be adjusted to reflect actual maintenance conditions?
Management Controls
• Are current versions of the following documents maintained?
— Operating reports
— Work schedules
Chapter 4 - Page 89
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions
— Activity reports
— Performance reports (labor, supplies, energy)
— Expenditure reports (labor, supplies, energy)
— Cost analysis reports
— Emergency and complaint calls
— Process control data, including effluent quality
•
Do the reports contain sufficient information to support their intended purpose?
•
Are the reports usable and accepted by the staff?
•
Are the reports being completed as required?
•
Are the reports consistent among themselves?
•
Are the reports used directly in process control?
•
Are the reports reviewed and discussed with operating staff?
•
What types of summary reports are required?
•
To whom are reports distributed and when?
Management Controls (Maintenance)
•
Does a maintenance record system exist? Does it include the following?
— As-built drawings
— Shop drawings
— Construction specifications
— Capital and equipment inventory
— Maintenance history (preventive and corrective)
— Maintenance costs
— Equipment manuals
•
Does the facility keep a current base record system as part of daily maintenance practices?
•
Does the facility have a work order system for scheduling maintenance? Is it explicit or
implicit?
•
Which of the following do work orders contain?
— Date
— Location
— Work requirements
— Assigned personnel
— Work order number
— Nature of problem
— Time requirements
— Space for reporting work performed, required parts and supplies, time required, and cost
summary
— Responsible staff member and supervisory signature requirements
•
When emergency work must be performed without a work order, is one completed afterward?
•
Are work orders usable and acceptable by staff as essential to the maintenance program? Are
they completed?
Chapter 4 - Page 90
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 4-1. Operation and Maintenance Function Evaluation Questions
• Is work order information transferred to a maintenance record system?
• Does a catalog or index system exist for controlling items in inventory?
• Are withdrawal tickets used for obtaining supplies from inventory?
• Do the tickets contain cost information and interact well with inventory controls and the work
order system?
• Is the cost and activity information from work orders aggregated to provide management
reports? Is this information also used for budget preparation?
• Is the maintenance performance discussed regularly with staff?
• How is the cost of contract maintenance or the use of specialized assistance recorded?
• Are safeguards and penalties adequate to prevent maintenance cards from being returned
without the work being done?
• Is the preventive maintenance record checked after an emergency equipment failure?
MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
Facility maintenance directly affects the ability of the facility to run efficiently and to comply
with its NPDES permit. The two types of facility maintenance are preventive maintenance and
corrective maintenance:
• Preventive maintenance:
- Reduces facility operating costs by eliminating breakdowns and the need for
corrective maintenance.
- Improves the facility's reliability by minimizing the time equipment is out of service.
- Increases the useful life of equipment, thus avoiding costly premature replacement.
- Avoids possible compliance violations.
• Corrective maintenance:
- Returns malfunctioning equipment to operation
- Avoids or minimizes possible violations
Evaluation of the maintenance function should focus on the ability to maintain process
equipment, supply of treatment chemicals, vehicles, and building and grounds. Although each
of the five evaluation topics (policies and procedures, organization, staffing, planning, and
management controls) should be covered for each facility inspected, the principal areas of
concern in the maintenance evaluation are:
• Staffing and training
• Planning and scheduling
• Management controls, including records systems and inventory control
Only well-trained, competent plant staff can be expected to perform adequate physical
inspections, repairs, and preventive maintenance. Wastewater facility maintenance is complex
and requires a variety of skills. An ongoing training program is essential because many of these
skills are not readily available.
Chapter 4 - Page 91
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Maintenance planning and scheduling are essential to effective corrective and preventive
maintenance. The maintenance supervisor should prepare work schedules listing job priorities,
work assignments, available personnel, and timing.
A detailed records system is the basis of any maintenance program. Records are used to
establish maintenance histories on equipment, diagnose problems, and anticipate—and
thereby avoid—equipment failure, making records an effective tool for preventive
maintenance.
A central inventory of spare parts, equipment, and supplies should be maintained and
controlled. The basis for the inventory should be the equipment manufacturer's
recommendations, supplemented by specific, historical experience with maintenance problems
and requirements. Inventoried supplies should be kept at levels sufficient to avoid process
interruptions.
A maintenance cost control system should be an integral part of every wastewater facility.
Budgets must be developed from past cost records and usually are categorized according to
preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and projected and actual major repair
requirements. Annual costs must be compared to the budget periodically to control
maintenance expenditures. Evaluating costs this way serves to control expenditures and
provides a baseline for future budgets.
The basic concerns that need to be addressed and evaluated during the inspector's
maintenance program review are presented in Table 4-1. These questions may help identify the
causes of a facility's operation and maintenance problems.
1), REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing more information on wastewater treatment
facilities and their processes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1973). Maintenance Management Systems for
Municipal Wastewater Facilities. EPA 430/9-74-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978). Field Manual for Performance Evaluation and
Troubleshooting at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. MO No. 16, EPA
430/9-78-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). Inspector's Guide for Evaluation of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants. EPA 430/9-79-010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1982). Comprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation and
Selected Management Issues. EPA 430/9-82-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999a). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Ozone
Disinfection. EPA 832-F-99-063.
Chapter 4 - Page 92
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999b). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Ultraviolet
Disinfection. EPA 832-F-99-064.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000a). Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Centrifuge
Thickening and Dewatering. EPA 832-F-00-053.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000b). Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Belt Filter
Press. EPA 832-F-00-057.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000c). Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet
Aerobic Treatment. EPA 832-F-00-031.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000d). Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet
Evapotranspiration. EPA 832-F-00-033.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000e). Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management,
Operation, and Maintenance Programs at Wastewater Treatment Plants. EPA 300-B-00-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000f). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Ammonia
Stripping. EPA 832-F-00-019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000g). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Chemical
Precipitation. EPA 832-F-00-018.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000h). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet
Dechlorination. EPA 832-F-00-022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000i). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Force Main
Sewers. EPA 832-F-00-071.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000j). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Granular
Activated Carbon Adsorption and Regeneration. EPA 832-F-00-017.
Water Environment Federation (WEF). (1992). Wastewater Treatment Plant Design. MOP No. 8.
Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF). (1990). Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. MOP
No. 11.
Chapter 4 - Page 93
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
E. FACILITY SITE REVIEW CHECKLIST
The following is an example of a checklist that may be used by inspectors at a facility site
review.
A. Operation and Maintenance Evaluation
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Facility properly operates and maintains treatment units
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Facility has standby power or other equivalent provision.
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Adequate alarm system for power or equipment failures is available.
4.
Sludge disposal procedures are appropriate:
Yes
No
N/A
a. Disposal of sludge according to regulations
Yes
No
N/A
b. State approval for sludge disposal received.
Yes
No
N/A
5.
All treatment units, other than backup units, are in service.
Yes
No
N/A
6.
Facility follows procedures for facility operation and maintenance.
Yes
No
N/A
7.
Sufficient sludge is disposed of to maintain treatment process equilibrium.
Yes
No
N/A
8.
Organizational Plan (chart) for operation and maintenance is provided.
Yes
No
N/A
9.
Plan establishes operating schedules.
Yes
No
N/A
10.
Facility has written emergency plan for treatment control.
11.
Maintenance record system exists and includes:
Yes
No
N/A
a. As-built drawings
Yes
No
N/A
b. Shop drawings
Yes
No
N/A
c. Construction specifications
Yes
No
N/A
d. Maintenance history
Yes
No
N/A
e. Maintenance costs
Yes
No
N/A
f. Repair history
Yes
No
N/A
g. Records of equipment repair and timely return to service.
Yes
No
N/A
12.
Adequate number of qualified operator's on-hand.
Yes
No
N/A
13.
Facility has established procedures for training new operators.
Yes
No
N/A
14.
Facility maintains adequate spare parts and supplies inventory.
Yes
No
N/A
15.
Facility keeps instruction files for operation and maintenance of each item of
major equipment.
Yes
No
N/A
16.
Operation and maintenance manual is available.
Yes
No
N/A
17.
Regulatory agency is notified of any bypassing.
(Dates: )
Yes
No
N/A
18.
a. Hydraulic overflows and/or organic overloads are experienced.
Yes
No
N/A
b. Untreated bypass discharge occurs during power failure.
Yes
No
N/A
c. Untreated overflows occurred since last inspection.
Reason:
Yes
No
N/A
d. Flows were observed in overflow or bypass channels.
Yes
No
N/A
e. Checking for overflows is performed routinely.
Yes
No
N/A
f. Overflows are reported to EPA or to the appropriate state agency as
specified in the permit.
Chapter 4 - Page 94
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B. Safety Evaluation
Yes
No
N/A
1. Facility uses undiked/unbermed oil/chemical storage tanks.
Yes
No
N/A
2. Facility maintains up-to-date equipment repair records.
Yes
No
N/A
3. Dated tags show out-of-service equipment.
a. Proper facility/unit lock-out and tag-out procedures are being followed.
Yes
No
N/A
4. Facility schedules/performs routine and preventive maintenance on time.
Yes
No
N/A
5. Facility provides personal protective clothing (e.g., safety helmets, ear
protectors, goggles, gloves, rubber boots with steel toes, eyewashes in labs).
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6. Safety devices are readily available:
a. Fire extinguishers.
b. Oxygen deficiency/explosive gas indicator.
c. Self-contained breathing apparatus near entrance to chlorine room.
d. Safety harness.
e. First aid kits.
f. Ladders to enter manholes or wet-wells (fiberglass or wooden for
electrical work).
g. Traffic control cones.
h. Safety buoy at activated sludge plants.
i. Life preservers for lagoons.
j. Fiberglass or wooden ladder for electrical work,
k. Portable crane/hoist.
Yes
No
N/A
7. Plant has general safety structures such as rails around or covers over tanks,
pits, or wells.
Yes
No
N/A
8. Emergency phone numbers are listed, including EPA and state.
Yes
No
N/A
9. Plant is generally clean, free from open trash areas.
Yes
No
N/A
10. Facility has available portable hoists, for equipment removal.
Yes
No
N/A
11. All plant personnel are immunized for typhoid, tetanus, and hepatitis B.
Yes
No
N/A
12. No cross connections exist between a potable water supply and non-potable
source.
Yes
No
N/A
13. Gas/explosion controls such as pressure-vacuum relief values, no smoking
signs, explosimeters, and drip traps are present near anaerobic digesters,
enclosed screening or degritting chambers, and sludge-piping or gas-piping
structures.
Yes
No
N/A
14. Facility has enclosed and identified all electrical circuitry.
Yes
No
N/A
15. Personnel are trained in electrical work to be performed as well as safety
procedures.
Chapter 4 - Page 95
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
16. Chlorine safety precautions are followed:
Yes
No
N/A
a. NIOSH-approved 30-minute air pack?
Yes
No
N/A
b. All standing chlorine cylinders chained in place?
Yes
No
N/A
c. All personnel trained in the use of chlorine?
Yes
No
N/A
d. Chlorine repair kit available?
Yes
No
N/A
e. Chlorine leak detector tied into plant alarm system?
Yes
No
N/A
f. Chlorine cylinders stored in adequately ventilated areas?
Yes
No
N/A
g. Ventilation fan with an outside switch?
Yes
No
N/A
h. Posted safety precautions?
Yes
No
N/A
i. Existing emergency SOP and/or RMP or SPCC?
Yes
No
N/A
17. Facility has complied with the six employer responsibilities for the Worker
Right-to-Know Law (P.A. 83-240)
Yes
No
N/A
18. Emergency Action Plan on file with local fire department and appropriate
emergency agency.
Yes
No
N/A
19. Laboratory safety devices (eyewash and shower, fume hood, proper labeling
and storage, pipette suction bulbs) available.
Yes
No
N/A
20. Facility post warning signs (no smoking, high voltage, non-potable water,
chlorine hazard, watch-your-step, and exit).
Chapter 4 - Page 96
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Discharge
Discharge
Screening
and/or
Comminutor
Grit
Chamber
Activated
Secondary
Sludge
Management
Disinfection
Sludge
Disposa
Tridliri
Filter
Disinfection
Flow
Measurement
Primary
Seoimentation
Solids Removal
Nitrogen
Control
Raw Wastewater
from Collection
System
Exhibit 4-1. General Wastewater Treatment Flow Diagram
Chapter 4 - Page 97
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 5 -
SAMPLING
Contents
A. Evaluation of Permittee Sampling Program and Compliance Sampling 99
Objectives and Requirements 99
Significant Industrial User Monitoring Program 100
Biosolids Monitoring Program 100
Toxicity Testing Program 100
StormWater Program 100
B. Sampling Procedures and Techniques 100
Wastewater Sample Collection Techniques 101
EPA Sample Identification Methods 106
Wastewater Sample Preservation and Holding Time 106
Transfer of Custody and Shipment of Samples 107
Quality Control 108
Quality Assurance Project Plan 112
Data Handling and Reporting 113
C. References 113
D. Permittee Sampling Inspection Checklist 115
List of Tables
Table 5-1. Compositing Methods 102
Table 5-2. Quality Control Procedures for Field Analysis and Equipment 110
Associated Appendices
M. Example Chain-of-Custody Form
N. Updated Fact Sheet: Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Training
Related Websites
Agency-wide Quality System Documents: https://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-
documents
Chapter 5 - Page 98
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE SAMPLING
PROGRAM AND COMPLIANCE SAMPLING
Wastewater sampling/analysis is an integral part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance Monitoring Program. NPDES permits contain specific
and legally enforceable effluent limitations and monitoring requirements.
OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS
When evaluating the permittee sampling program, the inspector should:
• Verify that the permittee's sampling program complies with the permit.
• Verify that the permittee's sampling program complies with:
- Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 136.1 to 136.6 and
Appendices A, B, and C (Guidelines for Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis
of Pollutants) for wastewater samples; and 40 CFR Part 503.
• Document potential violations to support enforcement action.
In addition, specific objectives of the sampling conducted by inspectors include the following:
• Verify compliance with effluent limitations.
• Verify accuracy of reports and program self-monitoring.
• Support enforcement action.
• Support permit development reissuance and/or revision.
• Determine the quantity and quality of effluent.
Sampling, analysis, preservation technique, sample holding time, and sample container
requirements are provided under 40 CFR Part 136 as authorized by section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Chapter 7 contains more information on required analytical procedures
"Laboratory Analyses Techniques Evaluation." See the checklist for use in evaluating the
permittee's sampling program at the end of this chapter.
For all NPDES permittees the inspector should perform a review of sampling procedures and
quality control measures the facility uses to ensure the integrity of sample data.
To evaluate sampling procedures, assess the following eight areas:
• Sample site locations
• Sample collection techniques
• Field measurements
• Sample labeling (including locations) and documentation
• Sample preservation and holding time
• Transfer of custody and shipment of samples
• Quality control
Chapter 5 - Page 99
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Data handling and reporting
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER MONITORING PROGRAM
It is the responsibility of the permitted Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with a
pretreatment program to oversee sampling procedures of industrial users and to conduct
compliance monitoring of its own. Therefore, during a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
(PCI) or audit, the inspector may also need to evaluate POTW sampling procedures for
significant industrial users who discharge to the POTW in addition to evaluating the sampling
procedures of any permitted POTW. According to the General Pretreatment Regulations, 40
CFR 403.12(o), industrial users and POTWs subject to 40 CFR 403.12 reporting requirements
must maintain the following monitoring records:
• Date, exact place, method and time of sampling, and name of sampler
• Date of analysis
• Name of analyst
• Analytical techniques/methods used
• Analytical results
During a PCI or an audit, the inspector evaluates the POTW industrial user monitoring program
with respect to the criteria specified in the POTW pretreatment program. Elements of the
sampling scheme will include the eight areas addressed above and any other areas specifically
addressed in the pretreatment program. Chapter 9 discusses the focus of this evaluation in
greater detail.
BIOSOLIDS MONITORING PROGRAM
Chapter 10 discusses evaluation of a permittee's biosolids monitoring program. Lists of
approved biosolids analytical methods, sample containers, preservation techniques, and
holding times for biosolids samples can be found on EPA's website at:
https://www.epa.gOv/biosolids/additional-information-biosolids-managers#analytical.
TOXICITY TESTING PROGRAM
Chapter 8 discusses evaluation of a permittee's Whole Effluent Toxicity testing program. In
addition, for methods manuals for Whole Effluent Toxicity testing go to
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effluent-toxicity-methods.
STORMWATER PROGRAM
Chapter 11 provides considerations for performing stormwater monitoring.
B. SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES
Whether an inspector is evaluating a permittee's sampling program or conducting compliance
sampling on the permittee's effluent, that inspector must be familiar with the procedures and
techniques necessary for accurate sampling of wastewaters. The following discussion details
Chapter 5 - Page 100
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
the procedures for sample collection, preservation, sample transfer including chain-of-custody,
quality control, and data handling.
WASTEWATER SAMPLE COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Sample collection is an important part of the compliance monitoring program. Without proper
sample collection procedures, the results of such monitoring programs are neither useful nor
valid, even with the most precise and accurate analytical measurements.
Selection of Representative Sampling Sites
Normally, samples should be collected at the location specified in the permit. In some
instances, the sampling location specified in the permit may not be adequate for the collection
of a representative sample. In that case, the inspector should determine the most
representative sampling point available and collect a sample at that location as well as the
location specified by the permit (or chosen by the permittee). If the facility disagrees, the
reason for the conflict must be documented for later resolution by the permitting authority.
Sample Types
Two types of sample techniques are used: grab and composite. For many monitoring
procedures, the regulations at 40 CFR Part 136 do not specify sampling type. For these
procedures, the NPDES permit writer determines the appropriate sample type based on the
data objective, and/or the required analytical method and specifies the sampling technique in
the NPDES permit.
Grab Samples. Grab samples are individual samples collected at a specific time not exceeding
15 minutes and are representative of the conditions at the time the sample is collected. The
sample volume depends on the type and number of analyses to be performed. The collection of
a grab sample is appropriate when a sample is needed to:
• Represent an effluent that does not discharge on a continuous basis.
• Provide information about instantaneous concentrations of pollutants at a specific time.
• Allow collection of a variable sample volume.
• Corroborate composite samples.
• Monitor parameters not amenable to compositing (e.g., pH, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, chlorine, purgeable organics, oil and grease, coliform bacteria, and others
specified by the NPDES permit, which may include phenols, sulfites, and hexavalent
chromium).
Composite Samples. Composite samples are samples collected over time, either by continuous
sampling or by mixing discrete samples. Composite samples represent the average
characteristics of the wastestream during the compositing period. Composite samples are
collected when:
• Average pollutant concentration during the compositing period is desired.
• Mass per unit time loadings are calculated.
Chapter 5 - Page 101
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Wastewater characteristics are highly variable.
The four primary methods of composite sample collection are time compositing, flow
proportion compositing, sequential compositing, and continuous compositing. Table 5-1 lists
the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. The permit may specify which type of
composite sample to use. Composite samples are collected either manually by combining
multiple grab samples or by using automatic sampling equipment. Inspectors should consider
variability in wastestream flow rate, parameter concentrations and the approved EPA methods
when choosing compositing methods, sampling equipment (tubing and containers), and quality
assurance procedures. The compositing methods are as follows:
• Time Composite Sample: This method requires discrete sample aliquots collected in one
container at constant time intervals. This method is appropriate when the flow of the
sampled stream is constant (flow rate does not vary more than ±10 percent of the
average flow rate) or when flow monitoring equipment is not available.
Table 5-1. Compositing Methods
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Comments
Time Composite
Constant sample
volume, constant time
interval between
samples.
Minimal manual effort;
requires no flow
measurement.
May lack representativeness for
highly variable flows.
Widely used in both
automatic and manual
sampling.
Flow-Proportional Composite
Constant sample
volume, time interval
between samples
proportional to stream
flow.
Minimal manual effort.
Requires accurate flow
measurement reading
equipment; manual compositing
from flowchart.
Widely used in
automatic as well as
manual sampling.
Constant time interval
between samples,
sample volume
proportional to total
stream flow at time of
sampling.
Minimal instrumentation.
Manual compositing from
flowchart in absence of prior
information on the ratio of
minimum to maximum flow;
chance of collecting too small or
too large individual discrete
samples for a given composite
volume.
Used in automatic
samplers and widely
used as manual
method.
Constant time interval
between samples,
sample volume
proportional to total
stream flow since last
sample.
Minimal instrumentation.
Manual compositing from flow
chart in absence of prior
information on the ratio of
minimum to maximum flow;
chance of collecting too small or
too large individual discrete
samples for a given composite
volume.
Not widely used in
automatic samplers
but may be done
manually.
Chapter 5 - Page 102
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 5-1. Compositing Methods
Method | Advantages | Disadvantages
Sequential Composite
Comments
Series of short period
composites, constant
time intervals between
samples.
Useful if fluctuations occur
and the time history is
desired.
Requires manual compositing of
aliquots based on flow.
Commonly used;
however, manual
compositing is labor
intensive.
Series of short period
composites, aliquots
taken at constant
discharge increments.
Useful if fluctuations occur
and the time history is
desired.
Requires flow totalizer; requires
manual compositing of aliquots
based on flow.
Manual compositing is
labor intensive.
Continuous Composite
Constant sample
volume.
Minimal manual effort,
requires no flow
measurement highly variable
flows.
Requires large sample capacity;
may lack representativeness for
highly variable flows.
Practical but not
widely used.
Sample volume
proportional to stream
flow.
Minimal manual effort, most
representative especially for
highly variable sample
volume, variable pumping
capacity and power.
Requires accurate flow
measurement equipment, large
sample volume, variable pumping
capacity, and power.
Not widely used.
• Flow-Proportional Composite Sample—in one method, a constant sample volume is
collected at varying time intervals proportional to stream flow (e.g., 200 milliliters
sample collected for every 5,000 gallons of flow). In the other method (which has two
variations, see Table 5-1), the sample is collected by increasing the volume of each
aliquot as the flow increases, while maintaining a constant time interval between the
aliquots.
• Sequential Composite Sample—this method requires discrete samples collected in
individual containers at constant time intervals or discharge increments; for example,
samples collected every 15 minutes, composited into separate containers each hour.
The discrete samples can then be manually flow-proportioned to form the composite
sample. Alternatively, a constant sample volume is collected at constant discharge
volume increments measured with a flow totalizer.
• Continuous Composite Sample—collect this sample continuously from the wastestream.
The sample may be constant volume, or the volume may vary in proportion to the flow
rate of the wastestream.
Influent Sample Collection. Document and take influent samples at points of high turbulence
flow to ensure good mixing. In some instances, the most desirable location may not be
accessible. Ensure sampling points are located prior to any internal facility return lines, and
sampling equipment should be placed so that it does not interfere with flow measuring devices.
The preferred sampling points for raw wastewater are at the most downstream location from
the collection lines, but prior to preliminary treatment:
Chapter 5 - Page 103
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Waste flowing from the last process in a manufacturing operation, for an industrial user.
• Pump wet well (if turbulent).
• Upstream collection lines, tank, or distribution box following pumping from the wet well
or sump.
• Flume throat.
• Aerated grit chamber.
• Upstream siphon following the comminutor (in absence of grit chamber).
If it is not possible to sample at a preferred point, choose an alternative location and document
the basis for choosing that location.
Effluent Sample Collection. Collect effluent samples at the location specified in the NPDES
permit. Occasionally, municipal plant permits may specify sampling prior to chlorination. For
these plants, monitor all parameters at the upstream location except fecal coliforms, pH, and
total residual chlorine. Collect wastewater for use in bioassays at the location specified in the
facility's NPDES permit.
Collect samples either manually (grab or composite) or with automatic samplers (continuous or
composite). The following general guidelines apply when taking samples:
• Take samples at a location specified in the NPDES permit and/or at a location selected
to yield a representative sample.
• Use the sampling method (grab, composite, continuous) specified in the permit. Some
parameters that must be collected as an individual grab sample are dissolved oxygen,
total residual chlorine, oil and grease, coliform bacteria, purgeable organics, sulfides,
cyanide, and total phenols.
• Avoid collecting large nonhomogeneous particles and objects.
• Collect the sample facing upstream to avoid contamination.
• Do not rinse sample container with sample when collecting oil and grease and
microbiological samples, but fill the container directly to within 2.5 to 5 cm from the
top.
• Fill the container completely if the sample is to be analyzed for purgeable organics,
oxygen, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, free chlorine, pH, hardness, sulfite, ammonium,
ferrous iron, acidity, or alkalinity.
• Collect sufficient volume to allow for quality assurance testing, (see EPA's website
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods for a listing of all approved sampling methods. Each
sampling method will indicate the required sampling equipment, sampling containers
and sampling volume, but additional volumes may be necessary for quality assurance
testing.)
Chapter 5 - Page 104
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The following general guidelines apply when using automatic samplers:
• Collect samples where the wastewater is well mixed. Collect the sample near the center
of the flow channel at 0.4 to 0.6 depth (mid-depth).
• Obtain a sufficient volume of sample to perform all required analyses plus any
additional amount for quality control. Individual portions of a composite sample should
be at least 100 milliliters to minimize sampler solids bias.
• For automatic samplers that use a peristaltic pump, obtain adequate flow rates in the
sampler tubing to effectively transport the suspended solids. To avoid solids bias, the
velocity of the wastewater in sample tubing should be at least 2 feet per second (fps)
and the tubing diameter should be at least 0.25 inch.
• Time of sample collection begins when the last aliquot is dispensed into the composite
sample container.
Sample Volume
The volume of sample collected depends on the type and number of analyses needed, as
reflected in the parameters to be measured. Obtain the volume of the sample sufficient for all
the required analyses plus an additional amount to provide for any split samples or repeat
analyses. EPA approved sampling methods provide a guide to sample volumes required for
determining the constituents in wastewater (available at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods).
Consult the laboratory receiving the sample for any specific volume required. EPA's Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA, 1979a) and Handbook for Sampling and Sample
Preservation of Water and Wastewater (EPA, 1982), and the current EPA-approved edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health
Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment
Federation (WEF), 2013) contain specific recommended minimum sample volumes for different
pollutant parameters.
Sample Containers
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 136 describe required sample containers, sample preservation,
and sample holding time. EPA approved sampling methods indicate appropriate sample
containers for each analysis It is essential that the sample containers be made of chemically
resistant material unaffected by the concentrations of the pollutants measured. In addition,
sample containers must have a closure that will protect the sample from contamination. Collect
wastewater samples for chemical analysis in plastic (polyethylene) containers. Exceptions to
this general rule are oil and grease samples, pesticides, phenols, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and other organic pollutant samples. Collect these in properly cleaned glass jars or
bottles and seal. Collect bacteriological samples in properly sterilized plastic or glass containers.
Collect samples that contain constituents that will oxidize when exposed to sunlight (such as
iron cyanide complexes) in dark containers.
Ensure sample containers are clean and uncontaminated. Check analytical procedures to
determine if they specify container cleaning procedures. Use precleaned and sterilized
disposable containers (e.g., polyethylene cubitainers). If these are not used or if the analytical
Chapter 5 - Page 105
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
method does not specify procedures, use the following procedures for cleaning sample
containers:
• Wash with hot water and detergent.
• Rinse with acid (e.g., nitric for metals).
• Rinse with tap water, then rinse three or more times with organic-free water.
• Rinse glass containers with an interference-free, redistilled solvent (such as acetone or
methylene chloride for extractable organics.
• Dry in contaminant-free area.
EPA SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION METHODS
Identify each sample accurately and completely. Use labels or tags to identify the samples that
are moisture-resistant and able to withstand field conditions. If moisture-resistant labels are
not available, place a piece of tape over each label to prevent water damage. Use a waterproof
pen to complete the labels or tags. A numbered label or tag associated with a field sample data
sheet containing detailed information on the sample is preferable to using only a label or tag
for information2. The information for each sample should include the following:
• Facility name/location
• Sample site location
• Sample number
• Name of sample collector
• Date and time of collection
• Indication of grab or composite sample with appropriate time and volume information
• Identification of parameter to be analyzed
• If the sample is preserved and, if so, the preservative used
WASTEWATER SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIME
In most cases, wastewater samples contain one or more unstable pollutants that require
immediate (e.g., within 15 minutes) preservation and/or analysis. Provide appropriate chemical
preservation before transferring samples to the laboratory. EPA approved sampling methods
indicate appropriate sample preservation for each analysis (sampling methods are available at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods). Procedures used to preserve samples include cooling, pH
adjustment, and chemical treatment. For some parameters, such as cyanide and phenols, add
preservatives to sample bottles prior to or immediately following sample collection. For many
samples, if preservatives are not appropriately used, bacteria can quickly degrade certain
constituents (such as phenols and phosphorus). Other constituents may volatilize (such as
volatile organics and sulfides) or may react to form different chemical species (hexavalent
2 Note: Preprinted labels, data sheets, chain-of-custody forms, etc., can be done in the field using software
developed by the Superfund Program.
Chapter 5 - Page 106
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
chromium, for example). Proper preservation and holding times are essential to ensure sample
integrity (see 40 CFR Part 136).
Analysis of samples within one day ensures against error from sample deterioration. However,
such prompt analysis is not feasible for composite samples in which portions may be stored for
as long as 24 hours. Where possible, provide sample preservation during compositing, usually
by refrigeration to 6°C (or icing). If using an automatic sampler with ice, replace the ice as
necessary to maintain low temperatures. This is a limitation of automatic samplers used during
the summer when ice must be frequently replaced.
Table II of 40 CFR 136.3(e) indicates maximum sample holding times. Times listed are the
maximum holding times between sample collection and analysis that are allowed for the
sample to be considered valid. Unless otherwise specified in the method, holding time
limitations begin upon combination of the last aliquot in a sample. When use of an automatic
sampler makes it impossible to preserve each aliquot, the chemical samples may be preserved
by maintaining at 6°C until compositing and sample splitting is completed (40 CFR 136.3(e)).
TRANSFER OF CUSTODY AND SHIPMENT OF SAMPLES
To ensure the validity of the permit compliance sampling data in court, written records must
accurately trace the custody of each sample through all phases of the monitoring program (EPA
Order 5360.1). The primary objective of this chain-of-custody is to create an accurate written
record (see an example chain-of-custody form in Appendix M) that can be used to trace the
possession and handling of the sample from the moment of its collection through its analysis
and introduction as evidence. The following procedures are appropriate for the transfer of
custody and shipment of samples:
• Use sample seals to protect the sample's integrity from the time of collection to the
time it is opened in the laboratory, including the time the sample is within an automatic
sampling apparatus, thus the automatic sampler should be sealed on the outside. The
seal should indicate the collector's name, the date and time of sample collection, and
sample identification number. For automatic samplers, seals should indicate the sample
time at which the apparatus began sampling, as the sample container is subsequently
sealed in the apparatus.
• Pack samples properly to prevent breakage. Seal or lock the shipping container to
readily detect any evidence of tampering. Use of tamper-proof evidence tape is
recommended.
• Place samples on ice or synthetic ice substitute that will maintain sample temperature
at 6°C throughout shipment.
• The responsibility for proper packaging, labeling, and transferring of possession of the
sample lies with the inspector. Accompany every sample with a sample tag and a
chain-of-custody record that has been completed, signed, and dated. The chain-of-
custody record should include the names of sample collectors, sample identification
numbers, date and time of sample collection, location of sample collection, and names
and signatures of all persons handling the sample in the field and in the laboratory.
Chapter 5 - Page 107
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• The originator retains a copy of the chain of custody forms. Also, the originator must
retain all receipts associated with the shipment.
• EPA Inspectors with the responsibility of working with hazardous materials that are
placed in commerce (transporting/shipping) must have hazardous materials training as
required by the Department of Transportation (see Appendix N).
• When transferring possession of samples, the transferee must sign and record the date
and time on the chain-of-custody record (use the currently approved record). In general,
custody transfers are made for each sample, although samples may be transferred as a
group, if desired. For each sample being transferred, the transferee should list the
sample and their name on the custody record. Each person who takes custody must fill
in the appropriate section of the chain-of-custody record. Both the transferee and
person who takes custody of the sample(s) must sign the custody record.
• Pack and ship samples in accordance with applicable International Air Transportation
Association (IATA) and/or DOT regulations.
QUALITY CONTROL
Conduct control checks during the actual sample collection to determine the performance of
sample collection techniques. In general, the most common monitoring errors usually are
improper sampling methodology, improper preservation, inadequate mixing during
compositing and splitting, and excessive sample holding time. In addition, collect and analyze
the following samples to check sample collection techniques:
Blanks
• Trip blank. Trip blanks are vial(s) filled at the laboratory with deionized water. The
blank(s) follows the same handling and transport procedures as the samples collected
during the event. The blank(s) functions as a check on sample contamination originating
from sample transport, shipping and from site conditions.
Note: Expose the trip blank vial(s), to the same environmental conditions (light,
temperature, etc.) of the sample vial(s) but do not open until it is time for analysis.
• Field blank/field reagent blank. Field blanks are similar to trip blanks except they are
prepared in the field with deionized water exactly as the sample(s) that are collected.
Field blanks are used to check for analytical artifacts and/or background introduced by
sampling and analytical procedures.
• Temperature blank. A temperature blank is a small sample bottle filled with distilled
water that is placed in each cooler prior to shipment. Upon arrival at the laboratory the
temperature of the sample bottle is measured to evaluate if samples were adequately
cooled during sample shipment.
• Equipment/rinsate blank. Collect an equipment/rinsate blank when using an automatic
sampler or other non-dedicated equipment during the sampling process. The blank is a
check of the equipment cleanliness. For automatic samplers, prepare blanks prior to
collecting samples, by pumping deionized organic free water (rinsate) through the
Chapter 5 - Page 108
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
sampler and collecting the discharge purge water in a sample container for analysis for
the constituents of concern.
Field Duplicate. Collect a field duplicate sample simultaneously from the same source at
selected stations on a random timeframe by grab samples or from two sets of field equipment
installed at the site. Duplicate samples check analytical precision as well as evaluate the
"representativeness" of the sample aliquot.
Split Samples. Split samples are samples that have been divided into two containers for analysis
by separate laboratories. These samples provide an excellent means of identifying
discrepancies in the permittee's analytical techniques and procedures. When filling split
samples from a single composite jug, shake the composited sample well and half fill the EPA
sample container, then shake the composite again and fill half of the permittee's container.
Repeat the procedure for each parameter collected.
The laboratories performing the sample analyses should also use the following control
measures:
Prep/Reagent Blank. A prep/reagent blank is a sample consisting of reagent(s), without the
target analyte or sample matrix, introduced into the analytical procedure at the appropriate
point and carried through all subsequent steps to determine the contribution of the reagents
and to aid in identifying errors in the observed value that may result from the analytical steps.
Quality Control Sample. A quality control sample is an uncontaminated sample matrix spiked
with known amounts of analytes from a source independent from the calibration standards.
Use this sample to establish intra-laboratory or analyst specific precision and bias or to assess
the performance of all or a portion of the measurements' system.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD). A matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate sample
is three times the normal volume required for a specific chemical analysis to which a known
quantity of analyte has been added prior to all sample preparation. The laboratory utilizes the
MS/MSD samples as part of their Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program.
• Use a matrix spike to verify accuracy of the analytical procedures.
• A matrix spike duplicate is a duplicate of a matrix spike sample. It measures the
precision of the analysis in terms of relative percent difference.
Table 5-2 indicates quality control procedures for field analyses and equipment. Quality control
is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of this manual and EPA's NPDES Compliance Inspector
Training module: Laboratory Analyses (EPA, 1990).
Chapter 5 - Page 109
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 5-2. Quality Control Procedures for Field Analysis and Equipment
Parameter
General
Daily
Other Frequency
Dissolved Oxygen
Membrane
• Enter the make, model,
• Calibrate meter using
• Annually, check instrument
Electrode
and serial and/or ID
manufacturer's instructions or
calibration and linearity
number for each meter in
Winkler-Azide method.
using a series of at least
a logbook.
• Check membrane for air bubbles
three dissolved oxygen
• Report data to nearest
and holes. Change membrane
standards.
0.1 mg/L.
and Potassium chloride (KCI)
• Annually, take all meters to
solution if necessary.
the laboratory for
• Check leads, switch contacts, etc.,
maintenance, calibration,
for corrosion and shorts if meter
and quality control checks.
pointer remains off-scale.
Winkler-Azide
Record data to nearest
Duplicate analysis should be run as a
Method
0.1 mg/L.
precision check. Duplicate values
should agree within ±0.2 mg/l.
PH
Electrode
Enter the make, model, and
• Calibrate the system against
Method
serial and/or ID number for
traceable standard buffer solutions
each meter in a logbook.
of known pH value that closely
brackets the actual sample pH
(e.g., 4, 7, and 10 at the start of a
sampling run).
• Periodically check the buffers
during the sample run and record
the data in the logbook.
• Be on the alert for erratic meter
response arising from weak
batteries, cracked electrodes,
fouling, etc.
• Check response and linearity
following highly acidic or alkaline
samples. Allow additional time for
equilibration.
• Check against the closest
reference solution each time a
violation is found.
• Rinse electrodes thoroughly
between samples and after
calibration. Blot dry.
• Store the probe in approved
storage solution (e.g., KCI)
Chapter 5 - Page 110
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 5-2. Quality Control Procedures for Field Analysis and Equipment
Parameter
Conductivity
General
Daily | Other Frequency
Enter the make, model, and
serial and/or ID number for
each meter in a logbook.
• Standardize with KCI standard
solutions having similar specific
conductance values to those
anticipated in the samples.
Calculate the cell constant using
two different standards.
• Rinse cell after each sample to
prevent carryover.
• Quarterly, take all meters to
lab for maintenance,
calibration, and quality
control checks.
• Quarterly, check
temperature compensation.
• Quarterly, check date of last
platinizing, if necessary.
• Quarterly, analyze NIST or
EPA reference standard
solutions, and record actual
vs. observed readings in the
logbook.
Residual Chlorine
Amperometric
Titration
Enter the make, model, and
ID and/or serial number of
each titration apparatus in a
logbook. Report results to
nearest 0.01 mg/l.
Refer to instrument manufacturer's
instructions for proper operation
and calibration procedures.
Biweekly, return instrument to
lab for maintenance and
addition of fresh, standardized
reagents.
Temperature
Manual
Thermometer
• Enter the make, model,
and serial and/or ID
number and temper-
ature range.
• All standardization
should be against a
traceable NIST or NIST
calibrated thermometer.
Reading should agree
within ±1°C. If
enforcement action
is anticipated, calibrate
the thermometer before
and after analysis. All
data should be read to
the nearest 1°C. Report
data between 10°
and 99°C to two
significant figures.
Check for air spaces of bubbles in
the column, cracks, etc. Compare
with a known source if available.
• Initially and annually,
determine accuracy
throughout the expected
working range of 0°C to
50°C. A minimum of three
temperatures within the
range should be used to
verify accuracy. Preferably,
the 3 temperature readings
should be taken within the
following ranges: 5-10°C,
15-25°C, and 35-45°C.
Thermistors,
Thermographs
Enter the make, model, and
serial and/or ID number of
the instrument in a log-
book. All standardization
shall be against a NIST or
NIST calibrated
thermometer. Reading
Check thermistor and sensing device
for response and operation
according to the manufacturer's
instruction. Record actual versus
standard temperature in logbook.
Initially and annually,
determine accuracy
throughout the expected
working range of 0°C to 50°C.
A minimum of three
temperatures within the range
should be used to verify
Chapter 5 - Page 111
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 5-2. Quality Control Procedures for Field Analysis and Equipment
Parameter
General
Daily
Other Frequency
should agree within ±1~C. If
enforcement action is
anticipated, refer to the
procedure listed above.
accuracy. Preferably, the 3
temperature readings should
be taken within the following
ranges: 5-10°C, 15-25°C, and
35-45°C.
Flow Measurement
Enter the make, model, and
serial and/or ID number of
each flow measurement
instrument in a logbook.
Install the device in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions and
with the procedures given in owner's
manual.
Annually affix record of
calibration (as per NIST
standard or manufacturer's
suggested standard) to the
instrument log.
Automatic Samplers
Enter the make, model, and
serial and/or ID number of
each sampler in a logbook.
For each sampling event, check
intake velocity vs. head (using a
minimum of three samples),
and clock time setting vs.
actual time interval. Calibrate
annually and record results in a
logbook.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
The EPA has developed the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) as a tool for project
managers and planners to document the type and quality of data needed for the agency to
make environmental decisions and to describe the methods for collecting and assessing those
data. The QAPP is required for all EPA projects resulting in the generation, collection, and use of
environmental data. The development, review, approval and implementation of the QAPP is an
integral part of an Agency-wide Quality System, which is required per the authority of EPA
Order 5360.1 A2.
If the EPA is to have confidence in the quality of data used to support environmental decisions,
there must be a systematic planning process in place. A product of the systematic planning
process is the QAPP. An example of the systematic planning process endorsed by the EPA is the
Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process. The QAPP ensures that the needed management and
technical practices are in place so that environmental data used to support agency decisions are
of adequate quality and usability for their intended purpose.
Prior to the start of data collection, a QAPP defining the goals and scope of the project, the
need for sample collection, a description of the data quality objectives and QA/QC activities to
ensure data validity and usability must be developed by the project officer. Thereafter, a review
by all parties to the sampling effort, such as a Quality Assurance (QA) Officer, must be
conducted. Also, EPA laboratories will require a copy of an approved QAPP prior to conducting
any sample analysis. This QAPP requirement applies to both EPA staff and outside contractors.
The process for approval of the QAPP and other documents related to the data collection
activity should be outlined in the lead organization's Quality Management Plan (QMP).
Chapter 5 - Page 112
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
For further information on QAPP's please visit the Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
web page at: https://www.epa.gov/quality/agency-wide-quality-system-documents.
DATA HANDLING AND REPORTING
Verified analytical results are normally entered into a laboratory data management system of
some type. The system should contain the sampling data, including time and exact location,
analysis dates and times, names of analysts, analytical methods/techniques used, and analytical
results. Data are then reported to the inspector for inclusion into the compliance report. The
quality assurance manual by EPA (EPA, 1979b) and the article by J.J. Delfino (Delfino, 1977)
provide useful information to the inspector on many data management techniques.
C, REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on sampling.
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2013). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater.
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. (1973). Handbook for Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring. USEPA Technology Transfer.
Delfino, J.J. (1977). "Quality Assurance in Water and Wastewater Analysis Laboratories." Water
and Sewage Works, 124(7), 79-84.
Federal Register. (1984). Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants
Under the Clean Water Act; Final Rule and Interim Final Rule and Proposed Rule. Vol. 49, No.
209.
Harris, D.J., and Keffer, W.J. (1974). Wastewater Sampling Methodologies and Flow
Measurement Techniques. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VII.
EPA-907/9-74-005.
Lauch, R.P. (1975). Performance of ISCO Model 1391 Water and Wastewater Sampler. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-670/4-75-003.
Lauch, R.P. (1976). A Survey of Commercially Available Automatic Wastewater Samplers. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/4-76-051.
Shelley, P.E. (1975). Design and Testing of a Prototype Automatic Sewer Sampling System.
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
600/2-76-006.
Shelley, P.E., and Kirkpatrick, G.A. (1975). An Assessment of Automatic Sewer Flow Samplers.
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/2-75-065.
Chapter 5 - Page 113
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978). Methods for Benzidine, Chlorinated Organic
Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979a). Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979b). Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in
Water and Wastewater Laboratories. EPA-600/4-79-019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979c). NPDES Compliance Sampling Inspection
Manual. MCD-51.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1981). Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes by GC, HPLC and GC/MS. Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1982). Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation
of Water and Wastewater. EPA-600/4-82-029.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector
Training Module: Laboratory Analysis. EPA 833-R-90-103.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000a). Manual for the Evaluation of Laboratories
Performing Aquatic Toxicity Tests. EPA-600/4-90/031.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000b). Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives
Process (G-4). EPA-600/R-96/055.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA 821-R-02-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA 821-R-02-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002c). Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms Organisms.
EPA 821-R-02-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002d). Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants; Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Methods; Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 136.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001- Reissued May 21, 2006). EPA Requirements for
QA Project Plans (QA/R-5). EPA-240/B-01/003.
Chapter 5 - Page 114
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Wood, L.B., and Stanbridge, H.H. (1968). "Automatic Samplers," Water Pollution Control, 67(5): 495-520.
D. PERMITTEE SAMPLING INSPECTION CHECKLIST
A. PERMITTEE SAMPLING EVALUATION
Yes No N/A
1. Take samples at sites specified in permit.
Yes No N/A
2. Locations adequate for representative samples.
Yes No N/A
3. Flow proportioned samples obtained when required by permit.
Yes No N/A
4. Complete sampling and analysis on parameters specified by permit.
Yes No N/A
5. Conduct sampling and analysis in frequency specified by permit.
Yes No N/A
6. Permittee uses method of sample collection required by permit.
Required method:
If not, method being used is: () Grab () Manual Composite
( ) Automatic Composite
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
7. Sample collection procedures adequate:
a. Samples refrigerated during compositing.
b. Proper preservation techniques used.
c. Containers and sample holding times before analyses conform to 40 CFR
136.3.
d. Samples analyzed in timeframe needed.
Yes No N/A
8. Facility performs monitoring and analyses more often than required by permit; if
so, results reported in permittee's self-monitoring report.
Yes No N/A
9. Samples contain chlorine.
Yes No N/A
10. Use contract laboratory for sample analysis.
Yes No N/A
B. SAMPLING INS
11. POTW collects samples from industrial users in pretreatment program.
PECTION PROCEDURES AND OBSERVATIONS
Yes No N/A
1. Obtain grab samples.
Yes No N/A
2. Obtain composite sample.
Compositing Frequency: Preservation:
Yes No N/A
3. Refrigerate sample during compositing.
Yes No N/A
4. Obtain flow-proportioned sample.
Yes No N/A
5. Obtain sample from facility sampling device.
Yes No N/A
6. Sample representative of volume and nature of discharge.
Yes No N/A
7. Sample split with permittee.
Yes No N/A
8. Employ chain-of-custody procedures.
Yes No N/A
9. Samples collected in accordance with permit.
Yes No N/A
10. Observe excessive foam, grease, floating solids at the outfall.
Chapter 5 - Page 115
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
C. AUTOMATIC SAMPLER PROCEDURES AND OBSERVATIONS
Yes No N/A
1. Sample intake tubing place in a well-mixed, representative location (0.4 to 0.6
depth).
Yes No N/A
2. Individual aliquot volume checked and at least 100ml.
Yes No N/A
3. Proper sample tubing (Teflon™ for organics, otherwise Tygon®) and tubing at ID
at least 0.25 inch.
Yes No N/A
4. Proper composite sample container (glass for organics, otherwise plastic.
Yes No N/A
5. Proper refrigeration (6°C or ice), with required documentation.
Yes No N/A
6. Proper wastewater velocity in the sample tubing (at least 2 fps).
Chapter 5 - Page 116
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 6 -
FLOW MEASUREMENT
Contents
A. Evaluation of Permittee's Flow Measurement 118
Objective and Requirements 118
Evaluation of Facility Installed Flow Devices and Data 118
Evaluation of Permittee Data Handling and Reporting 120
Evaluation of Permittee Quality Control 121
B. Flow Measurement Compliance 121
Objectives 121
Flow Measurement System Evaluation 121
Closed Conduit Evaluation Procedures 123
Primary Device Inspection Procedures 123
Secondary Device Inspection Procedures 126
C. References 129
D. Flow Measurement Inspection Checklist 131
Associated Appendices
O. Supplemental Flow Measurement Information
Chapter 6 - Page 117
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE'S FLOW MEASUREMENT
OBJECTIVE AND REQUIREMENTS
To comply with the permit requirements established under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), the permittee must accurately determine the quantity of
wastewater being discharged. Discharge flow measurement is an integral part of the NPDES
program, it is important that the inspector evaluate the accuracy of the measurement.
In addition to providing usable information for enforcement purposes, flow measurement
serves to:
• Provide data for pollutant mass loading calculations.
• Provide operating and performance data on the wastewater treatment plant.
• Compute treatment costs, based on wastewater volume.
• Obtain data for long-term planning of plant capacity, versus capacity used.
• Provide information on Infiltration and Inflow (l/l) conditions, and the need for cost-
effective l/l correction.
A Flow Measurement Inspection Checklist for the inspector's use appears at the end of this
chapter.
EVALUATION OF FACILITY INSTALLED FLOW DEVICES AND DATA
There are two types of wastewater flow: closed-channel flow and open-channel flow. Closed-
channel flow occurs under pressure in a liquid-full conduit (usually a pipe). The facility will
usually have a metering device inserted into the conduit that measures flow. Examples of
closed-channel flow measuring devices are the Venturi meter, the Pitot tube, the paddle wheel,
the electromagnetic flowmeter, Doppler, and the transit-time flowmeter. In practice, closed-
channel flow is normally encountered between treatment units in a wastewater treatment
plant, where liquids and/or sludges are pumped under pressure.
Open-channel flow occurs in conduits that are not liquid-full. Open-channel flow is partially full
pipes not under pressure. Open-channel flow is the most prevalent type of flow at
NPDES-regulated discharge points. Open-channel flows are typically measured using primary
and secondary devices. Primary devices are standard hydraulic structures, such as flumes and
weirs that are inserted in the open channel. Inspectors can obtain accurate flow measurements
merely by measuring the depth of liquid (head) at the specific point in the primary device. In a
weir application, for example, the flow rate is a function of the head of liquid above the weir
crest.
Facilities use secondary devices in conjunction with primary devices to automate the flow
measuring process. Typically, secondary devices measure the liquid depth in the primary device
and convert the depth measurement to a corresponding flow, using established mathematical
relationships. Examples of secondary devices are gauges, floats, ultrasonic transducers,
bubblers, and transit-time flowmeters. A recorder generally measures the output of the
Chapter 6 - Page 118
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
secondary device transmitted to a recorder and/or totalizer to provide instantaneous and
historical flow data to the operator. Outputs may also be transmitted to sampling systems to
facilitate flow proportioning. Appendix 0, "Supplemental Flow Measurement Information,"
contains further information on flow measurement devices.
The inspector must assure that the permittee obtains accurate wastewater flow data to
calculate mass loading (quantity) from measured concentrations of pollutants discharged as
required by many NPDES permits. The permittee must produce data that meet requirements in
terms of precision and accuracy. Precision refers to data reproducibility or the ability to obtain
consistent data from repeated measurements of the same quantity. Accuracy refers to the
agreement between the amount of a component measured by the test and the amount
present.
The accuracy of flow measurement (including both primary and secondary devices) varies
widely with the device, its location, environmental conditions, and other factors such as
maintenance and calibration. Faulty fabrication, construction, and installation of primary
devices are common sources of errors. Improper calibration, misreading, and variation in the
speed of totalizer drive motors are major errors related to secondary devices (see Appendix 0,
"Supplemental Flow Measurement Information"). When evaluating facility installed devices, the
inspector should do the following:
• Verify that the facility has installed primary and/or secondary devices according to the
manufacturer's manual instructions.
• Inspect the primary device for evidence of corrosion, scale formation, or solids
accumulation that may bias the flow measurement.
• Verify that weirs are level, plumb, and perpendicular to the flow direction.
• Verify that flumes are level and smooth-finished, the throat walls (narrowed section of
flume) are plumb, and the throat width is the standard size intended.
• Inspect historical records (i.e., strip charts and logs) for evidence of continuous flow
measurements and for routine and maintenance operations schedules. Compare
periods of missing data with maintenance logs for explanations of measuring system
problems.
• Observe the flow patterns near the primary device for excessive turbulence, velocity, or
accumulating foam. The flow lines should be straight.
• Ensure that the flow measurement system or technique being used measures the entire
wastewater discharge as required by the NPDES permit. Inspect carefully the piping to
determine whether there are any wastewater diversions, return lines, or bypasses
around the system. Make sure the system meets the permit requirement, such as
instantaneous or continuous, daily, or other time interval measures. Note anomalies in
the inspection report.
• Verify that the site chosen for flow measurement by the facility is appropriate and is in
accordance with permit requirements.
Chapter 6 - Page 119
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Verify that the site chosen by the facility for flow measurement is suitable for the type
of discharge, flow range, suspended solids concentration, and other relevant factors.
• Determine if the facility has closed-channel flow measuring devices where the pipe is
always full. If these devices are used, then there must also be a means for the permittee
and regulatory agencies/inspector to verify the accuracy of these meters. Primary open-
channeled flow measuring devices such as weirs and flumes should be used in an open-
channel segment above or below the closed-channel segment to verify the flow
measured by the closed-channel flow measuring devices.
• Verify that the facility uses appropriate tables, curves, and formulas to calculate flow
rates.
• Review and evaluate calibration and maintenance programs for the discharger's flow
measurement system. The permit normally requires the facility to check the calibration
regularly by the permittee. The facility must ensure that their flow measurement
systems are calibrated by a qualified source at least once a year to ensure their
accuracy. Lack of such a program is considered unacceptable for NPDES compliance
purposes.
• Verify that the facility calibrates secondary flowmeter systems to be within 10 percent
of the primary flow measurement system.
• Verify that primary and secondary devices are adequate for normal flow as well as
maximum expected flows. Note whether the flow measurement system can measure
the expected range of flows.
• Collect accurate flow data during inspection to validate self-monitoring data collected
by the permittee.
• The facility must install a flow measuring system that has the capability of routine flow
verification by the permittee or appropriate regulatory personnel.
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE DATA HANDLING AND REPORTING
The permittee or facility must keep flow measurement records for a minimum period of three
years. Many flow-measuring devices produce a continuous flowchart for plant records. Flow
records should contain date, flow, time of reading, and operator's name. The facility should
record maintenance, inspection dates, and calibration data.
The inspector should review the permittee's records and note the presence or absence of data
such as:
• Frequency of routine operational inspections.
• Frequency of maintenance inspections.
• Frequency of flowmeter calibration (should be as specified in permit, generally at least
once per year).
• Irregularity or uniformity of flow.
Chapter 6 - Page 120
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE QUALITY CONTROL
The inspection should evaluate the following quality control issues during a compliance
inspection to ensure:
• Proper operation and maintenance of equipment
• Accurate records
• Sufficient inventory of spare parts
• Valid flow measurement techniques
• Precise flow data
• Adequate frequency of calibration checks
Evaluate precision of float driven flow meters when flows are stable. Push the float gently
downward, hold for 30 seconds, then allowed to return normally. The recorded flow rate
should be the same before and after the float was moved. Evaluate accuracy by measuring the
instantaneous flow rate at the primary device used at the facility and comparing the value
against the value on the meter, graph, integrator, or company record. The difference between
two stable totalizer readings (flow is steady for 10 minutes or more) should not exceed ±10
percent of the instantaneous flow measured at the primary device. Note that most flow
measurement systems have both an instantaneous meter readout and a totalizer. Both devices
should agree, but that is not always the case due to electrical and other various malfunctions in
the flow measuring system. In most cases, the totalizer reading will be what is reported by the
permittee. If this is the case, then that device should be checked for accuracy and the
permittee's flow measuring system rated accordingly.
In addition, the inspector can evaluate accuracy by installing a second flow measurement
system, sometimes referred to as a reference system. Agreement in measured flow rates
between the two systems should be within ±10 percent of the reference rate if all conditions
are as recommended for the systems.
B. FLOW MEASUREMENT COMPLIANCE
OBJECTIVES
The current NPDES program depends heavily on the permittee's submittal of self-monitoring
data. The flow discharge measured during the NPDES compliance inspection should verify the
flow measurement data collected by the permittee, support any enforcement action that may
be necessary, and provide a basis for reissuing or revising the NPDES permit.
FLOW MEASUREMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
The responsibility of the inspector includes collecting accurate flow data during the inspection
and validating data collected during the permittee's self-monitoring.
The NPDES inspector must check both the permittee's flow data and the flow measurement
system to verify the permittee's compliance with NPDES permit requirements. If a flow-
measuring device is located below ground or in confined space, inspectors are not to enter
Chapter 6 - Page 121
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
confined spaces unless trained and permitted to do so. When evaluating a flow measurement
system, the inspector should consider and record findings on the following:
• Whether the system measures the entire discharge flow.
• The system's accuracy and good working order. This will include a thorough physical
inspection of the system and comparison of system readings to actual flow or those
obtained with calibrated portable instruments.
• The need for new system equipment.
• The existence or absence of a routine calibration and maintenance program for flow
measurement equipment.
If the permittee's flow measurement system is accurate within ±10 percent, the inspector
should use the installed system. If the flow sensor or recorder is found to be inaccurate, the
inspector should determine whether the equipment can be corrected in time for use during the
inspection. If the equipment cannot be repaired in a timely manner, use the portable flow
sensor and recorder used to assess the accuracy of the permittee's system for the duration of
the inspection. If nonstandard primary flow devices are being used, request the permittee to
supply data on the accuracy and precision of the method being employed.
For flow measurement in pipelines, the inspector may use a portable flowmeter. The inspector
should select a flowmeter with an operating range wide enough to cover the anticipated flow
to be measured. The inspector should test and calibrate the selected flowmeter before use. The
inspector should select the site for flow measurement according to permit requirements and
install the selected flowmeter according to the manufacturer's specifications. The inspector
should use the proper tables, charts, and formulas as specified by the manufacturer to calculate
flow rates.
Four basic steps are involved in evaluating the permittee's flow measurement system:
• Physical inspection of the primary device
• Physical inspection of the secondary device and ancillary equipment
• Flow measurement using the primary/secondary device combination of the permittee
• Certification of the system using a calibrated, portable instrument
Facilities with a closed pipe flow measurement system present a challenge to the inspector.
Have the facility personnel explain the operation of the system and how they calibrate the flow
measurement system. Check if it is calibrated yearly at a minimum. It is suggested that the
facility conduct periodic monthly checks of the flow measurement system. The inspector can do
a calibration of the closed pipe flow measurement systems in the following ways:
1. If an open-channel primary device is maintained at the facility the inspector can obtain an
instantaneous head reading to verify the accuracy of the closed channel flow measuring
system. Flow should be within ±10 percent of the closed channel system.
Chapter 6 - Page 122
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
2. The inspector can use a portable flow meter (usually consists of two strap-on sensors that
mount on the pipe and utilize the Doppler principle) to verify the accuracy of the facility's
flow measurement system by conducting side-by-side comparisons. Flow should be within
±10 percent.
3. Confirm that the calibration procedure demonstrated by the facility's calibration personnel
is adequate.
The following sections present procedures for inspecting the more common types of primary
and secondary devices, for measuring flow using common permanent and portable systems,
and for evaluating flow data. Please note that the number of primary/secondary device
combinations is limitless; therefore, it is not feasible to provide procedures for all systems.
When encountering systems other than those discussed here the inspector should consult the
manufacturer's manual or facility personnel for advice on how the flow-measurement system
operates before preparing a written inspection procedure.
CLOSED CONDUIT EVALUATION PROCEDURES
For closed-channel flow, the inspector performs the following checks on the system:
• Check for straight pipe runs of sufficient length both upstream (8-10 inches) and
downstream (4-6 inches) of the measuring device.
• Determine if the meter size is appropriate for pipe diameter and flow ranges based on
equipment manufacturer literature.
• Determine frequency of cleaning of pressure taps.
PRIMARY DEVICE INSPECTION PROCEDURES
The two most common open-channel primary devices are sharp-crested weirs and Parshall
flumes. Common sources of error when using them include the following:
• Faulty fabrication—weirs may be too narrow or not "sharp" enough. Flume surfaces
may be rough, critical dimensions may exceed tolerances, or throat walls may not be
vertical.
• Improper installation—the facility may install weirs and flumes too near pipe elbows,
valves, or other sources of turbulence. The devices may be out of level or plumb.
• Sizing errors—the primary device's recommended applications may not include the
actual flow range.
• Poor maintenance—primary devices corrode and deteriorate. Debris and solids may
accumulate in them Specific inspection procedures for the sharp-crested weir, the
Parshall flume, and the Palmer-Bowlus flume devices follow.
Sharp-Crested Weir Inspection Procedures
• Inspect the upstream approach to the weir.
- Verify that the weir is perpendicular to the flow direction.
Chapter 6 - Page 123
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Verify that the approach is a straight section of conduit with a length at least 20
times the maximum expected head of liquid above the weir crest.
- Observe the flow pattern in the approach channel. The flow should occur in smooth
stream lines without velocity gradients and turbulence.
- Check the approach, particularly near the weir, for accumulated solids, debris, or oil
and grease. The approach must have no accumulated matter.
• Inspect the sharp-crested weir.
- Verify that the crest of the weir is level across the entire conduit traverse.
- Measure the width of the weir crest. The edge of the weir crest should be no more
than 1/8-inch thick.
- Make certain the weir crest corresponds to zero-gauge elevation (zero output on the
secondary device).
- Measure the angle formed by the top of the crest and the upstream face of the weir.
This angle must be 90 degrees.
- Measure the chamfer (beveled edge) on the downstream side of the crest. The
chamfer should be approximately 45 degrees.
- Visually survey the weir-bulkhead connection for evidence of leaks or cracks that
permit bypass.
- Measure the height of the weir crests above the channel floor. The height should be
at least twice the maximum expected head (2H) of liquid above the crest.
- Measure the width of the end contraction. The width should be at least twice the
maximum expected head (2H) of the liquid above the crest.
- Confirm the location of the head-measuring device. The device should be located
upstream of the weir at a point at least four times the maximum head.
- Inspect the weir for evidence of corrosion, scale formation, or clinging matter. The
weir must be clean and smooth.
- Observe flow patterns on the downstream side of the weir. Check for the existence
of an air gap (ventilation) immediately adjacent to the downstream face of the weir.
Ventilation is necessary to prevent a vacuum that can induce errors in head
measurements. Also, ensure that the crest is higher than the maximum downstream
level of water in the conduit.
- Verify that the nappe is not submerged and that it springs free of the weir plate.
- If the weir contains a V-notch, measure the apex angle. The apex should range from
22.5 degrees to 90 degrees. Verify that the head is between 0.2 and 2.0 feet. The
weir should not be operated with a head of less than 0.2 feet since the nappe may
not spring clear of the crest.
King's Handbook of Hydraulics (King, 1963) frequently referenced throughout this chapter,
provides a detailed discussion on weirs.
Chapter 6 - Page 124
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Parshall Flume Inspection Procedures
• Inspect the overall flume design.
- Check that the flume is in a straight section of the conduit.
- Check that the flume design is symmetrical and level in the transverse and
translational directions.
- Check that the flume is smooth-finished and constructed using a corrosion resistant
material.
- Measure the dimensions of the flume. Dimensions are strictly prescribed as a
function of throat width (see Figure 0-5 in Appendix 0 for critical dimensions).
- Measure the head of liquid in the flume at two-thirds upstream of the throat in the
convergence section and compare with the acceptable ranges in Table 0-4 in
Appendix 0.
- Check that the flow at the entrance is free of turbulence or "white" water. Flows
should be laminar through the flume with uniform velocities across the width of the
flume. Smaller flumes should have velocities less than 0.5 meters per second. Larger
flumes should have velocities less than 2 meters per second.
• Inspect the flume approach (convergent section).
- Confirm that the upstream channel is straight, horizontal, and of a uniform cross-
section for a distance that is at least ten times the flume throat width.
- Verify that the mouth of the convergent section is as wide as the channel and that
the convergent section is merged flushed against the channel wall with rounded
transitions (smooth transition between convergent section and channel wall —i.e.,
no sharp edges) to avoid turbulence in the flow.
- Check that the upstream channel is free of accumulated matter. Accumulated
matter may be indicative of oversizing of the flume or an incorrect setting of the
flume in the channel.
- Confirm that the location of the liquid measuring device is two-thirds upstream of
the throat in the convergence section.
• Inspect the flume discharge (divergent section).
- Check that the design of the downstream channel is low enough to allow free
discharge conditions in the divergent section of the flume.
- Check that the downstream channel is also free of accumulated matter.
- Verify that the head of water in the discharge is not restricting flow through the
flume. There should not be any obstruction, constriction, or channel turns in the
divergent section that may cause the flow to back up in the flume. The existence of a
"standard wave" is good evidence of free flow and verifies that there is no
submergence present. This must be accounted for in the calculation of flow rate
through the flume as described in the next section.
Chapter 6 - Page 125
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Determine whether submergence occurs at or near maximum flow (e.g., look for
water marks on the wall).
Palmer-Bowl us Flume Inspection Procedures
• Inspect the overall flume design as outlined above. These flumes are seldom used for
effluent flow measurement.
• Inspect the flume.
- The flume should be in a straight section of the conduit.
- Flow at the entrance should be free of "white" water.
- Observe the flow in the flume. The profile should approximate that depicted in
Figure 0-8 in Appendix 0.
- The flume should be level in the transverse direction and should not exceed the
translational slope in Table 0-6 in Appendix 0.
- Measure the head of water in the flume. Head should be within the ranges specified
in Table 0-6 in Appendix 0.
• Inspect the flume discharge.
- Verify that free flow exists. Look for the characteristic "standing wave" in the
divergent section of the flume.
Venturi Meter Inspection Procedures
• Verify that the facility installed the Venturi meter according to manufacturer's
instructions.
• Verify that the facility installed the Venturi meter downstream from a straight and
uniform section of pipe, at least 5 to 20 diameters, depending on the ratio of pipe to
throat diameter and whether straightening vanes are installed upstream. (Installation of
straightening vanes upstream will reduce the upstream piping requirements.)
• Verify that the pressure measuring taps are free of debris and are not plugged.
• Verify the facility calibrated the Venturi meter in place by either the volumetric method
or the comparative dye dilution method to check the manufacturer's calibration curve
or to develop a new calibration curve.
SECONDARY DEVICE INSPECTION PROCEDURES
The following are common sources of error in the use of secondary devices:
• Improper location—gauge is in the wrong position relative to the primary device.
• Inadequate maintenance—gauge is not serviced regularly.
• Incorrect zero setting—zero setting of gauge is not the zero point of the primary device.
• Operator error—human error exists in the reading.
Chapter 6 - Page 126
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Flow Measurement Procedures in Weir Applications
• Determine that the head measurement device is positioned 3 to 4 head lengths
upstream of a weir.
• Verify that the zero or other point of the gauge is equal to that of the primary device.
The inspector should use an independent method of measuring head, such as with a yardstick
or carpenter's rule (be sure to take your measurement at least four times the maximum head
upstream and from the weir and convert to nearest hundredth of a foot). To determine flow
rate, use the appropriate head discharge relationship formula (see Table 0-1 in Appendix 0).
Flow Measurement Procedures in Parshall Flume Applications
Flow Measurement—Free-Flow Conditions.
• Determine upstream head (Ha) using staff gauge.
- Verify that staff gauge is set to zero head. Use either a yardstick or carpenter's rule.
- Verify that staff gauge is at proper location (two-thirds the length of the converging
section back from the beginning of the throat).
- Read to nearest division the gauge division at which liquid surface intersects gauge.
- Read Ha in feet from staff gauge.
• To determine flow rate, use Figure N-6 in Appendix 0 in the unit desired, use tables
published in flow measurement standard references, or calculate using the coefficients
in Table 0-5 in Appendix 0.
Flow Measurement—Submerged-Flow Condition.
Generally, it is difficult to make field measurements with submerged-flow conditions. In cases
when measurements can be obtained (using a staff or float gauge), the procedures listed below
should be followed:
• Determine upstream head using staff or float gauge.
- Read to nearest division and, at the same time as for Hb, the gauge division at which
liquid surface intersects gauge.
- Calculate Ha from gauge reading.
• Determine downstream head (Hb) using staff or float gauge.
- Hb refers to a measurement at the crest.
- Read to nearest division, and at the same time as for Ha, the gauge division at which
liquid surface intersects gauge.
- Calculate Hb from staff reading.
• Determine flow rate.
- Calculate percent submergence:
Chapter 6 - Page 127
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Consult Table 0-6 in Appendix 0.
- When a correction factor is obtained, use Ha and find free-flow from Figure 1-6.
- Multiply this free-flow value by the correction factor to obtain the submerged flow.
The inspector may use an independent method of measuring head, such as a yardstick or
carpenter's rule at the proper head measurement point. Because of the sloping water surface in
the converging section of a flume, it is essential that the proper head measurement point be
used.
Flow Measurement in Palmer-Bowlus Flume Applications
• Obtain head measurements as in the Parshall Flume application, using the secondary
device. The head is the height of water above the step. The total depth upstream of the
step is not the head.
• Refer to manufacturer-supplied discharge tables to convert head measurements to flow
data. Palmer-Bowlus flumes, unlike Parshall flumes, are not constructed to standard
dimensional standards. The inspector must not use discharge tables supplied by other
manufacturers.
Verification
Most flow measurement errors result from inadequate calibration of the flow totalizer, and
recorder. If the inspector has determined that the primary device has been installed properly,
verification of the permittee's system is relatively simple. Compare the flow determined from
the inspector's independent measurement to the flow of the permittee's totalizer or recorder.
The permittee's flow measurements should be within 10 percent of the inspector's
measurements to certify accurate flow measurement. Optimally, flow comparisons should be
made at various flow rates to check system accuracy.
When the permit requires that the daily average flow be measured by a totalizing meter, the
inspector should verify that the totalizer is accurate (i.e., properly calibrated). This can be done
during a period of steady flow by reading the totalizer and at the same time starting a
stopwatch. Start the stopwatch just as a new digit starts to appear on the totalizer. After 10 to
30 minutes, the totalizer should be read again; just as a new digit begins to appear, the stop
watch is read. Subtract the two totalizer readings to determine, the total flow over the
measured time period. Calculate the flow rate in gallons per minute by using the time from the
stopwatch. Compare this flow rate to the flow determined by actual measurement of the head
made at the primary device at the time interval. Consider the calibration of the totalizer
satisfactory if the two flows are within 10 percent of each other, when the actual measured
flow is used as the known value, or divisor, in the percent calculation.
Chapter 6 - Page 128
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
C. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on flow measurement.
Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers, Inc. (1973). Handbook for Industrial Wastewater
Monitoring. USEPA, Technology Transfer.
Blasso, L. (1975). "Flow Measurement Under Any Conditions," Instruments and Control Systems,
48(2): 45-50.
Bos, M.G. (1976). Discharge Measurement Structures, Working Group on Small Hydraulic
Structures International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Eli, R., and Pederson, H. (1979). Calibration of a 90°V-Notch Weir Using Parameters Other than
Upstream Head. EPA-600/4-80-035.
ISCO. (2006). Open Channel Flow Measurement Handbook, Lincoln, Nebraska.
King, H.W., and Brater, E.F. (1963). Handbook of Hydraulics. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
Mauis, F.T. (1949). "How to Calculate Flow Over Submerged Thin-Plate Weirs." Eng. News-
Record. p. 65.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (2013). Wastewater Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Robinson, A.R. (1965). Simplified Flow Corrections for Parshall Flumes Under Submerged
Conditions. Civil Engineering, ASCE.
Shelley, P.E., and Kirkpatrick, G.A. (1975). Sewer Flow Measurement; A State of the Art
Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-75-027.
Simon, A. (1976). Practical Hydraulics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Smoot, G.F. (1974). A Review of Velocity-Measuring Devices. U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI), United States Geological Survey (USGS). Open File Report, Reston, Virginia.
Stevens. (1978). Water Resources Data Book, Beaverton, Oregon: Leupold & Stevens.
Thorsen, T., and Oden, R. (1975). "How to Measure Industrial Wastewater Flow," Chemical
Engineering, 82(4): 95-100.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. (1975). A Guide to Methods and
Standards for the Measurement of Water Flow. COM-75-10683.
Chapter 6 - Page 129
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Reclamation. (2001). Water Measurement
Manual, 2nd Ed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1981). NPDES Compliance Flow Measurement Manual.
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits Enforcement Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Video: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Parshall Flume inspection. EPA 832-V91-001. Available at:
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hiOLgTo6g
Chapter 6 - Page 130
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
D. FLOW MEASUREMENT INSPECTION CHECKLIST
A. GENERAL
Yes No N/A
1. a. Primary flow measuring device properly installed and maintained.
Yes No N/A
b. Flow measured at each outfall?
Number of outfalls?
Yes No N/A
c. Is there a straight length of pipe or channel before and after the flowmeter
of at least 5 to 20 diameter lengths?
Yes No N/A
d. If a magnetic flowmeter is used, are there sources of electric noise in the
near vicinity?
Yes No N/A
e. Is the magnetic flowmeter properly grounded?
Yes No N/A
f. Is the full pipe requirement met?
Yes No N/A
2. a. Flow records properly kept.
Yes No N/A
b. All charts maintained in a file.
Yes No N/A
c. All calibration data entered into a logbook.
Yes No N/A
3. Actual discharged flow measured.
Yes No N/A
4. Effluent flow measured after all return lines.
Yes No N/A
5. Secondary instruments (totalizers, recorders, etc.) properly operated and
maintained.
Yes No N/A
6. Spare parts stocked.
Yes No N/A
7. Effluent loadings calculated using effluent flow.
B. FLUMES
Yes No N/A
1. Flow entering flume reasonably well-distributed across the channel and free of
turbulence, boils, or other disturbances.
Yes No N/A
2. Cross-sectional velocities at entrance relatively uniform.
Yes No N/A
3. Flume clean and free of debris and deposits.
Yes No N/A
4. All dimensions of flume accurate and level.
Yes No N/A
5. Side walls of flume vertical and smooth.
Yes No N/A
6. Sides of flume throat vertical and parallel.
Yes No N/A
7. Flume head being measured at proper location.
Yes No N/A
8. Measurement of flume head zeroed to flume crest.
Yes No N/A
9. Flume properly sized to measure range of existing flow.
Yes No N/A
10. Flume operating under free-flow conditions over existing range of flows.
Yes No N/A
11. Flume submerged under certain flow conditions.
Yes No N/A
12. Flume operation invariably free-flow.
Chapter 6 - Page 131
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
C. WEIRS
Yes
No
N/A
1.
What type of weir does the facility use?
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Weir exactly level.
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Weir plate plumb and its top and edges sharp and clean.
Yes
No
N/A
4.
Downstream edge of weir is chamfered at 45°.
Yes
No
N/A
5.
Free access for air below the nappe of the weir.
Yes
No
N/A
6.
Upstream channel of weir straight for at least four times the depth of water
level and free from disturbances.
Yes
No
N/A
7.
Distance from sides of weir to side of channel at least 2H.
Yes
No
N/A
8.
Area of approach channel at least (8 x nappe area) for upstream distance of
15H.
Yes
No
N/A
9.
If not, is velocity of approach too high?
Yes
No
N/A
10.
Head measurements properly made by facility personnel.
Yes
No
N/A
11.
Leakage does not occur around weir.
Yes
No
N/A
12.
Use of proper flow tables by facility personnel.
D. OTHER FLOW DEVICES
1.
Type of flowmeter used:
2.
What are the most common problems that the operator has had with the
flowmeter?
3.
Measured wastewater flow: MGD;
Recorded flow: ; Error %
E. CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Flow totalizer properly calibrated.
2.
Frequency of routine inspection bv proper operator: /dav.
3.
Frequency of maintenance inspections by plant personnel:
/vear.
Yes
No
N/A
4.
Flowmeter calibration records kept. Frequency of flowmeter calibration:
/month.
Yes
No
N/A
5.
Flow measurement equipment adequate to handle expected ranges of flow
rates.
Yes
No
N/A
6.
Calibration frequency adequate.
Chapter 6 - Page 132
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 7 -
LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND QUALITY
ASSURANCE
Contents
A. Objectives and Requirements 134
B. Sample Handling Procedures 134
Evaluation of Permittee Sample Handling Procedures 134
C. Laboratory Analyses Techniques Evaluation 135
Evaluation of Permittee Laboratory Analytical Procedures 135
Evaluation of Permittee Laboratory Facilities and Equipment 136
D. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 138
Evaluation of the Precision and Accuracy of the Permittee Laboratory 138
Example of Laboratory QA/QC Measures for Microbial Analyses 140
Evaluation of Permittee Data Handling and Reporting 140
Evaluation of Permittee Laboratory Personnel 141
Evaluation of Contract Laboratories 141
Overview of the Discharge Monitoring Report Quality Assurance Program and How
It Relates to the Inspection Program 141
E. References 142
F. Laboratory Quality Assurance Checklist 144
Chapter 7 - Page 133
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS
The analytical laboratory provides both qualitative and quantitative information for
determining the extent of permittee compliance with permit discharge requirements. To be
valuable or useful, the data must be representative and accurately describe the characteristics
and concentrations of constituents in the samples submitted to the laboratory. The objectives
of laboratory Quality Assurance (QA) are to monitor and document the accuracy and precision
of the results reported and to meet reliability requirements.
QA refers to a total program for ensuring the reliability of data by utilizing administrative and
technical procedures and policies regarding personnel, resources, and facilities. QA is required
for all functions bearing on environmental measurements and includes activities such as
project/study definition; sample collection and tracking; laboratory analysis; data validation,
analysis, reduction, and reporting; documentation; and data storage systems. Thus, the QA
program is designed to evaluate and maintain the desired quality of data. Quality Control (QC),
a function of QA, is the routine application of procedures for controlling the accuracy and
precision of the measurement process and includes the proper calibration of instruments and
the use of the appropriate analytical procedures.
The regulations at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 122.41(e)
(conditions applicable to all permits), requires adequate laboratory and process controls,
including appropriate QA/QC procedures. Each permittee's laboratory must have a QA/QC
program. The laboratory must document the QA/QC program in a written QA/QC manual and
the laboratory should make it available to all personnel responsible for sample analyses. The
manual must clearly identify the individuals involved in the QA program and document their
responsibilities. The laboratory's standard operating procedures must meet user requirements
in terms of specificity, completeness, precision, accuracy, representativeness, and
comparability of the required testing procedures. The laboratory should devote approximately
10 to 20 percent of their resources to their QA/QC program.
Guidance in this chapter is broad-based and may not be applicable to every laboratory. This
chapter includes a Laboratory Quality Assurance Checklist for the inspector's use at the end of
the chapter. For detailed information concerning laboratory QA/QC, refer to Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories (EPA, 1979) and EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training Module: Laboratory Analysis (EPA, 1990). If a more
detailed assessment of a laboratory is required, personnel with more extensive knowledge of
the methodologies should perform the inspection.
B. SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
Proper sample handling procedures are necessary in the laboratory from the sample's receipt
to its discard. Sample handling procedures for small permittees may differ from procedures for
larger permittees because staff organizational structures and treatment facility designs vary
Chapter 7 - Page 134
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
from one facility to the next. However, proper sample handling procedures should be
standardized, utilized and documented by all permittees. In evaluating laboratory sample
handling procedures, the inspector should verify the following:
• The laboratory area is secure and restricts entry to authorized personnel only.
• The laboratory has a sample security area that is dry, clean, and isolated; has sufficient
refrigerated space; and can be locked securely.
• The laboratory has a sample custodian and a back-up custodian.
• The custodian receives all incoming samples, signs the chain-of-custody record sheet
accompanying the samples, and locks the samples in the sample security area
refrigerator.
• The custodian ensures that samples are properly stored.
• The custodian performs or analyzes checks of proper preservation, container type, and
holding times and documents the results.
• The custodian distributes and retrieves samples to and from personnel who perform the
analyses (i.e., analysts) and documents the transfer of the samples in the chain-of-
custody record, which is retained as a permanent record. The chain-of-custody record
typically identifies the sample identification number, sample collection date and time,
sample type, sample location, sample volume, and preservatives.
• The custodian and analysts ensure the minimum possible number of people handle the
samples.
• The custodian only disposes of samples and records upon direction from the laboratory
director, in consultation with previously designated enforcement officials, when it is
certain that the information is no longer required or that the samples have deteriorated.
C, LABORATORY ANALYSES TECHNIQUES EVALUATION
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The permittee's laboratories or its contract laboratories must use uniform methods, thus,
eliminating methodology as a variable when data are compared or shared among laboratories.
The permittee's laboratory must consult 40 CFR Part 136 for the alternative methods approval
process. A permittee may only use alternative test procedures if the procedures have EPA
approval, as specified by 40 CFR 136.4 and 136.5, and promulgated under Public Law (PL)
92-500.
Many standardized test procedures promulgated under 40 CFR Part 136 are covered in EPA's
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA, 1983) and the latest accepted
edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public
Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water
Environment Federation (WEF), 2013). Revisions and new additions to this manual are made
whenever new analytical techniques or instruments are developed. These are considered
Chapter 7 - Page 135
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
accepted after final publication in the Federal Register.3 Other approved methods from United
States Geological Survey (USGS), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and
several commercial vendor methods are also referenced in 40 CFR Part 136.
In evaluating laboratory analytical procedures, the inspector should verify the following:
• The laboratory personnel follow analytical methods specified in the most current 40 CFR
Part 136.
• The laboratory personnel properly perform any deviations allowed by 40 CFR Part 136
and maintain documentation of any EPA-approved deviation from specified procedures.
• The laboratory personnel follow QA/QC procedures that conform to the procedures
specified in the permit, analytical method, or methods compendium for approved 40
CFR Part 136 methods from a consensus organization. For example, the Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA, AWWA, and WEF)
contains QA/QC procedures.
• The laboratory personnel maintain a QA/QC record on reagent preparation, instrument
calibration and maintenance, incubator temperature, and purchase of supplies.
• The laboratory personnel conduct QA/QC checks on materials, supplies, equipment,
instrument calibration and maintenance, facilities, analyses, and standard solutions.
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE LABORATORY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
To verify that the proper analytical procedures are being followed, the inspector should have
the responsible analyst describe each of the procedures. The inspector should be alert to any
deviation from the specified analytical method. Any questions regarding the proper procedures
can be resolved by referring to the cited methodology. Even simple analyses can yield invalid
results if the methodology cited in 40 CFR Part 136 is not exactly followed. Certain required
deviations from the approved methods are cited in 40 CFR Part 136, notes.
Laboratory Services
The availability of laboratory services affects data reliability. In evaluating laboratory services,
the inspector should verify that the laboratory provides the following:
• Adequate supply of laboratory pure water, free from chemical interferences and other
undesirable contaminants. The laboratory personnel should check water quality
routinely and document it.
• Adequate bench, instrumentation, storage, and recordkeeping space.
• Clean and orderly work area to help avoid contamination.
• Adequate circulation and egress.
• Adequate humidity and temperature control.
• Adequate lighting and ventilation.
3 The most current 40 CFR Part 136 may supersede any method or technique cited in this manual.
Chapter 7 - Page 136
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Dry, uncontaminated compressed air when required.
• Efficient fume hood systems.
• Necessary equipment such as a hot plate, incubator, water bath, refrigerator for
samples, glassware, pH meter, thermometer, balance, etc.
• Electrical power for routine laboratory use and, if appropriate, voltage-regulated
sources for delicate electronic instruments.
• Vibration-free area for accurate weighing.
The inspector should also check that the laboratory personnel use proper safety equipment
(e.g., lab coats, gloves, safety glasses, goggles, and fume hoods) where necessary. The inspector
should document any problems and refer to the proper authority (e.g., Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)).
Instruments and Equipment
Instrumentation is extremely important in the analytical laboratory. To a certain extent,
analytical instrumentation is always developmental; manufacturers are continually redesigning
and upgrading their products, striving for miniaturization, enhanced durability and sensitivity,
and improved automation. In evaluating laboratory instruments and equipment, the inspector
should verify the following:
• The laboratory personnel follow standard and specific procedures for selecting and
cleaning glassware and containers. Chapter 2 of EPA's NPDES Compliance Monitoring
Inspector Training Module: Laboratory Analysis (EPA, 1990) contains detailed
information on glassware cleaning.
• The laboratory personnel follow written requirements (e.g., standard operating
procedures) for daily operation of instruments and equipment.
• The laboratory contains emergency equipment such as a fire extinguisher, eye wash
station, shower, first aid kit, lab coats, gloves, and goggles.
• Standards and appropriate blanks are available from suppliers to perform standard
calibration procedures. The laboratory personnel should use standard concentrations
that closely bracket actual sample concentrations. Sources of standards are documented
and where possible, traceable to a national standard (e.g., National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
• The laboratory personnel maintain records of each set of analyses performed including
the order in which calibration, QA/QC, and samples were analyzed (i.e., analysis run logs
or instrument run logs).
• The laboratory personnel follow written troubleshooting procedures to identify
common equipment malfunctions.
• The laboratory personnel follow written schedules for replacement, cleaning, checking,
and/or adjustment by service personnel.
• The laboratory personnel maintain documentation on equipment maintenance and
service checks.
Chapter 7 - Page 137
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Commonly used analytical instruments include analytical balances, pH meters, dissolved oxygen
meters, conductivity meters, turbidity meters, spectrophotometers, atomic absorption
spectrophotometers, organic carbon analyzers, selective ion analyzers, gas-liquid
chromatographs, titrimetric analyses, and temperature controls. Chapter 2 of EPA's NPDES
Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training Module: Laboratory Analysis (EPA 1990) includes a
detailed discussion on these instruments.
Supplies
Chemical reagents, solvents, and gases are available in many grades of purity, ranging from
technical grade to various ultrapure grades. The purity of the materials required in analytical
chemistry varies with the type of analysis. The parameter being measured, the analytical
method, and the sensitivity and specificity of the detection system determine the purity of the
reagents required. Do not use reagents of lesser purity than that specified by the method. In
evaluating laboratory supplies, the inspector should verify that the laboratory personnel:
• Check the accuracy of purchased solutions as per method requirements.
• Prepare stock solutions and standards using volumetric glassware.
• Prepare and standardize reagents against reliable primary standards.
• Use the required reagent purity for the specific analytical method.
• Check working standards frequently to determine changes in concentration or
composition.
• Verify concentrations of stock solutions before being used to prepare new working
standards.
• Label standards and reagents properly including the preparation date, concentration,
the analyst's identification, storage requirements, and discard date.
• Store standards, reagents, and solvents in appropriate containers and under required
method conditions and manufacturer's directions. If conditions are not specified, store
standards and reagents according to 40 CFR Part 136, Table II.
• Store standards, reagents and solvents using clean containers of suitable composition
with tight-fitting stoppers.
• Discard standards and reagents after recommended shelf-life has expired or when signs
of discoloration, formation of precipitates, or significant changes in concentrations are
observed.
D. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
EVALUATION OF THE PRECISION AND ACCURACY OF THE PERMITTEE LABORATORY
The purpose of laboratory control procedures is to ensure high-quality analyses using control
samples, control charts, reference materials, and instrument calibration. The laboratory must
initiate and maintain controls throughout the analysis of samples. Specifically, each testing
batch must contain at least one blank, standard, duplicate, and spiked (as applicable) sample
analysis. When a batch contains more than 10 samples, every tenth sample should be followed
by a duplicate and a spike (as applicable). Consult each method for specific QC requirements.
Chapter 7 - Page 138
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The precision of laboratory findings refers to the reproducibility or degree of agreement among
replicate measurements of the same quantity. The closer the numerical values of the
measurements come to each other, the more precise the measurements are. In a laboratory QC
program, precision is determined by the analysis of actual samples in duplicate. These may
represent a range of concentrations and a variety of interfering materials usually encountered
during the analysis. Accuracy refers to the degree of difference between observed values and
known or actual values. The closer the value of the measurement comes to the actual value,
the more accurate the measurement is. The accuracy of a method can be determined by
analyses of samples to which known amounts of reference standards have been added (spiked
samples).
In evaluating the precision of the measurement process, the inspector should verify that the
laboratory personnel:
• Introduce duplicate samples into the train of actual samples at least 10 percent of the
time to monitor the performance of the analytical system.
• Prepare and use precision control charts or other statistical techniques for each
analytical procedure. Develop precision control charts by collecting data from a
minimum of 15 to 20 duplicate samples (run in controlled conditions) over an extended
period (e.g., 10 to 20 days). Statistical methods include calculation of mean, standard
deviation, and variance to define the range and variability of the data.
• Take corrective actions when data fall outside the warning and control limits.
• Document out-of-control data, the situation, and the corrective action taken.
In evaluating accuracy of the measurement process, the inspector should verify that the
laboratory personnel:
• Introduce spiked samples into the train of actual samples at least 10 percent of the time
to monitor the performance of the analytical system. In the spiked samples, the amount
of additive is appropriate to the detection limit and sample concentration.
• Prepare and use accuracy control charts for each analytical procedure. Develop accuracy
control charts by collecting data from a minimum of 15 to 20 spiked samples (run in
controlled conditions) over an extended period.
- Establish accuracy limits (as percent recovery) based on standard deviations whose
upper and lower control limits are three times the standard deviation above and
below the central line.
- Establish the upper and lower warning limits at twice the standard deviation above
and below the central line. Note: Some parameters have a defined warning limit
required by 40 CFR Part 136.
• Take corrective actions when data fall outside the warning and control limits.
• Document out-of-control data, the situation, and the corrective action taken.
Chapter 7 - Page 139
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EXAMPLE OF LABORATORY QA/QC MEASURES FOR MICROBIAL ANALYSES
As an example of the laboratory quality measures an inspector might evaluate, the following
discussion applies to microbial analysis. Microbial contamination is a common concern related
to animal feeding operations and sanitary treatment systems covered by the NPDES standards.
Common microbial contaminants of concern in wastewater and sewage sludge include total
coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococci. Appropriate microbial laboratory control measures
the inspector should verify include the use by laboratory personnel of:
• Positive and negative controls—controls are known cultures that are analyzed exactly
like a field sample and will produce an expected positive or negative result for a given
type of medium.
• Media sterility checks—media are incubated at the appropriate temperature without
the field sample and observed for growth to verify the media is not contaminated with
the evaluated microorganisms prior to use in the laboratory.
• Dilution sterility checks—dilution water is analyzed exactly like a field sample and
observed for growth to verify the water is not contaminated with the evaluated
microorganisms prior to use in the laboratory.
• Sample bottle blanks—a blank is analyzed for each bottle lot used during the sampling
episode to verify the sample bottles had not been contaminated with the evaluated
microorganisms prior to the field sampling.
• Membrane filter preparation blanks—membrane filter blanks are analyzed at the
beginning of each set of filtered samples to verify the membrane filtration equipment is
not contaminated with the evaluated microorganisms prior to use in the laboratory.
• Incubator temperature monitoring—incubator temperatures are monitored in the
laboratory to verify that prepared microbial samples are being incubated at the correct
temperatures.
The analytical methods for microbial analyses are specified in 40 CFR Part 136, Table IA.
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE DATA HANDLING AND REPORTING
An analytical laboratory must have a system for uniformly recording, correcting, processing,
and reporting data. The inspector should verify that the laboratory personnel:
• Use correct formulas to calculate the final results.
• Apply round-off rules uniformly.
• Establish significant figures for each analysis.
• Provide data in the form/units required for reporting.
• Ensure cross-checking calculations provisions are available.
• Determine control chart approaches and statistical calculations for the purposes of
QA/QC and reporting.
Chapter 7 - Page 140
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Maintain laboratory report forms that provide complete data documentation and
facilitate data processing.
• Keep permanently bound laboratory notebooks or pre-printed data forms to document
the procedures performed and the details of the analysis, such as the original value
recorded, correction factors applied, blanks used, data values reported, personnel that
performed the tests, and any abnormalities that occurred during the testing procedure.
• Define procedures for correction of data entry errors. Original data entries can be read
and the individual(s) making the corrections are clearly identified.
• Back up computer data with duplicate copies (i.e., electronic and hardcopy).
• Maintain data records that allow the recalculation of all results reported by the
laboratory(ies) from the original unprocessed results (i.e., raw data) to the final results
sent to EPA and the regulatory authority for a minimum of three years.
EVALUATION OF PERMITTEE LABORATORY PERSONNEL
Analytical operations in the laboratory vary in complexity. Consequently, the laboratory should
clearly define work assignments. All analysts should be thoroughly instructed in basic
laboratory operations. Those persons performing complex analytical tasks should be qualified
and properly trained. All analysts must follow specified laboratory procedures and be skilled in
using the laboratory equipment and techniques required for the analyses assigned to them. In
evaluating laboratory personnel, the inspector should consider the following factors:
• Adequacy of training.
• Skill and diligence in following procedures.
• Skill and knowledge in using equipment and analytical methods (particularly for complex
equipment such as gas chromatography).
• Precision and accuracy in performing analytical tasks.
• Assignment of clearly defined tasks and responsibilities.
EVALUATION OF CONTRACT LABORATORIES
When the permittee contracts with the laboratory to analyze samples, the inspector may need
to evaluate the laboratory practices at the contracted laboratory. The practices can also be
evaluated by other designated EPA inspectors. If a deficiency is identified at a contract
laboratory, the permittee is responsible for the deficiency and will be notified.
OVERVIEW OF THE DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE INSPECTION PROGRAM
The validity of the NPDES program depends on the quality of the self-monitoring program. The
Discharge Monitoring Report Quality Assurance (DMR QA) program is an important tool used to
ensure the quality of NPDES self-monitoring data. The program is designed to evaluate and
improve the ability of laboratories serving NPDES permittees to analyze and report accurate
self-monitoring data.
Chapter 7 - Page 141
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Major and selected minor permittees under the NPDES program are required to participate in
the annual DMR-QA study program. DMR-QA evaluates the analytical ability of the laboratories
that routinely perform self-monitoring analyses required by their NPDES permit. EPA also
approves certain state laboratory certification programs to be used as either a full or a partial
substitute for DMR-QA. Under the program, permittees must purchase NPDES performance
evaluation samples containing constituents normally found in industrial and municipal
wastewaters from accredited providers. The permittee analyzes these samples using the
analytical methods and laboratory normally employed for their reporting of NPDES
self-monitoring data. The supplier of the performance evaluation sample will evaluate the
results and respond to the permittee.
Highlights
• The DMR-QA Program has been an excellent means of focusing on and improving the
quality of laboratory results used in developing DMR data. Improvements in the DMR-
QA data have been significant.
• This program has helped major permittees identify and correct both analytical and data
handling problems in their laboratories.
• In general, permittees are receptive to the program and recognize its value, including
some who challenged EPA's authority to require participation.
• Regions and states are generally supportive and have made good use of the results of
this program for targeting inspections and directing other follow-up activities. This
ability to concentrate corrective actions on problem permittees results in an increased
efficiency in improving the self-monitoring data of all NPDES permittees.
• The program is one of the least resource-intensive methods for maintaining direct and
regular technical contact with NPDES permittees. It has been recognized as a
cost-effective effort.
• Utilizing computer technology, the following ways of managing and analyzing DMR QA
data were started in fiscal year 1985: compiling tracking summaries, comparing
performance of the major industries, tracking multiple permittees, and regenerating
past performance evaluation reports.
The results of the DMR-QA are provided to and tracked by EPA and the state DMR-QA
coordinator. The DMR-QA Program and the NPDES inspection programs are interdependent in
several areas. First, EPA can use DMR-QA evaluations of permittee performance to target the
inspections since the evaluations identify potential problems in the laboratory analysis or data
handling and reporting. This targeting helps to direct limited resources to permittees who need
them most. Non-reporting of DMR-QA results is also an important trigger for on-site
inspections. Secondly, EPA can identify instances when the QA results do not comply with the
parameters specified in the permit to check during the inspection.
E. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on laboratory procedures.
Chapter 7 - Page 142
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
ASTM. (1982). Annual Book of Standards: Part 31, Water. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2013). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater.
Brown, E., Skougstad, M.W. and Fishman, M.J. (1970). Methods for Collection and Analysis of
Water Samples for Dissolved Minerals and Gases. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
Water Resources Inv., Book 5.
Delfino, J.J. (1977). "Quality Assurance in Water and Wastewater Analysis Laboratories." Water
and Sewage Works, 124(7): 79-84.
Federal Register. (1986). Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants
Under the Clean Water Act (also see October 26, 1986). Vol 51. No. 125.
Plumb, R.H., Jr. (1981). "Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water
Samples." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report, EPA/CE-81-1.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), United States Department of the Interior (USDI). (1985).
""Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments." Open
File Report 85-495.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water
and Wastewater Laboratories. EPA-600/4-79-019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector
Training Module: Laboratory Analysis. EPA 833-R-90-103.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999a). Methods and Guidance for Analysis of Water,
Version 2.0. EPA 821-C-99-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference (NELAC): Constitution, Bylaws, and Standards. EPA-600/R-04/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). EPA Quality Manual for Environmental
Programs. CIO 2105-P-01-0.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). EPA Microbiology Resources. Available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/microbiological-methods-and-online-publications
Chapter 7 - Page 143
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
F. LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
A. GENERAL
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Laboratory maintains a written QA/QC manual.
B. SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Access to laboratory area restricted to authorized personnel only.
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Sample security area available within laboratory that is dry, clean, and isolated;
has sufficient refrigerated space; and can be locked securely.
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Laboratory refrigerator utilizes a thermometer with NIST certification or that is
annually calibrated against another NIST-certified thermometer and
documented using certification tags.
Yes
No
N/A
4.
Laboratory has a sample custodian and a back-up custodian.
Yes
No
N/A
5.
Custodian receives and logs in all incoming samples.
Yes
No
N/A
6.
Custodian properly stores samples.
Yes
No
N/A
7.
Custodian performs checks of proper preservation, container type, and holding
times performed and documents the results.
Yes
No
N/A
8.
Custodian distributes and retrieves samples to and from the analysts.
Yes
No
N/A
9.
Custodian maintains chain-of-custody documentation.
Yes
No
N/A
10.
Custodian and analysts ensure the minimum possible number of people handles
the samples.
Yes
No
N/A
11.
Custodian disposes of the samples and records upon direction of the laboratory
director.
C. LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Yes
No
N/A
1.
EPA-approved written analytical testing procedures used and protocols are easily
accessible by laboratory personnel.
Yes
No
N/A
2.
If alternate analytical procedures used, proper written approval obtained.
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Calibration and maintenance of instruments and equipment satisfactory.
Yes
No
N/A
4.
QA procedures used.
Yes
No
N/A
5.
QC procedures adequate.
6.
Duplicate samples are analyzed % of time.
7.
Spiked samples are used % of time.
Yes
No
N/A
8.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing is required by the permit and conducted by
the laboratory. Culturing procedures are adequately documented for each
organism tested.
Yes
No
N/A
9.
WET testing protocols are clearly described.
Yes
No
N/A
10. Commercial laboratory used.
Name:
Address:
Contact:
Phone:
Chapter 7 - Page 144
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Certification #:
D. LABORATORY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Yes No N/A
1. Adequate supply of laboratory pure water available for specific analysis.
Yes No N/A
2. Adequate bench, instrumentation, storage, and recordkeeping space available.
Yes No N/A
3. Clean and orderly work area available to help avoid contamination.
Yes No N/A
4. Adequate circulation and egress.
Yes No N/A
5. Adequate humidity and temperature control.
Yes No N/A
6. Adequate lighting and ventilation.
Yes No N/A
7. Dry, uncontaminated compressed air available.
Yes No N/A
8. Efficient fume hood systems available.
Yes No N/A
9. Adequate electrical sources available.
Yes No N/A
10. Instruments/equipment available and in good condition.
Yes No N/A
11. Vibration-free area for accurate weighing available.
Yes No N/A
12. Proper safety equipment (lab coats, gloves, safety glasses, goggles, and fume
hoods) used when necessary.
Yes No N/A
13. Proper volumetric glassware used.
Yes No N/A
14. Glassware properly cleaned.
Yes No N/A
15. Written requirements for daily operation of instruments/equipment available.
Yes No N/A
16. Standards and appropriate blanks available to perform daily check procedures.
Yes No N/A
17. Sources of standards documented and where possible traceable to a national
standard (e.g., NIST).
Yes No N/A
18. Records of each set of analysis including order in which calibration, QA/QC, and
samples were analyzed are available.
Yes No N/A
19. Written troubleshooting procedures for instruments/equipment are available.
Yes No N/A
20. Written schedules for required maintenance are available.
Yes No N/A
21. Check the accuracy of purchased solutions as per method requirements.
Yes No N/A
22. Prepare stock solutions and standards using volumetric glassware.
Yes No N/A
23. Prepare and standardize reagents against reliable primary standards.
Yes No N/A
24. Use the required reagent purity for the specific analytical method.
Yes No N/A
25. Frequently checked working standards to determine changes in concentration or
composition.
Yes No N/A
26. Verify concentrations of stock solutions before being used to prepare new
working standards.
Yes No N/A
27. Background reagents and solvents run with every series of samples.
Yes No N/A
28. Label standards and reagents properly, including the preparation date,
concentration, the analyst's identification, storage requirements, and discard
date.
Yes No N/A
29. Store standards, reagents, and solvents in appropriate containers and under
required method conditions and manufacturer's directions.
Yes No N/A
30. Store standards, reagents, and solvents using clean containers.
Chapter 7 - Page 145
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Yes No N/A
31. Replace gas cylinders at 100-200 psi.
Yes No N/A
32. Written procedures exist for cleanup, hazard response methods, and applications
of correction methods for reagents and solvents.
Yes No N/A
33. Discard standards after recommended shelf-life has expired or when signs of
discoloration, formation of precipitates, or significant changes in concentrations
are observed.
E. LABORATORY PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND CONTROL PROCEDURES
Yes No N/A
1. Analyzed multiple control samples (i.e., blanks, standards, duplicates, and spikes)
for each type of QA/QC check and recorded information. Every tenth sample
should have been followed by a duplicate and a spike.
Yes No N/A
2. Plotted precision and accuracy control methods used to determine whether
valid, questionable, or invalid data are being generated throughout the analysis.
Yes No N/A
3. Taken corrective actions when data fall outside the warning and control limits.
Yes No N/A
4. Recorded out-of-control data, the situation, and the corrective action taken.
F. DATA HANDLING AND REPORTING
Yes No N/A
1. Used correct formulas to calculate final results.
Yes No N/A
2. Applied round-off rules uniformly.
Yes No N/A
3. Established significant figures for each analysis.
Yes No N/A
4. Recorded data in the proper form and units for reporting.
Yes No N/A
5. Ensured cross-checking calculations provisions are available.
Yes No N/A
6. Developed and followed control chart approaches and statistical calculations for
QA/QC.
Yes No N/A
7. Laboratory report forms developed to provide complete data documentation
and to facilitate data processing.
Yes No N/A
8. Laboratory notebooks or pre-printed data forms bound permanently utilized to
provide good documentation.
Yes No N/A
9. Procedures for correction of data entry errors are defined.
Yes No N/A
10. Backed up computer data with duplicate copies (i.e., electronic and hardcopy).
Yes No N/A
11. Efficient filing system exists, enabling prompt retrieval of information and
channeling of report copies.
Yes No N/A
12. Data records allow recalculation of all results reported by the laboratory(ies)
from the original unprocessed results (raw data) to the final results sent to EPA
and the regulatory authority for a minimum of three years.
G. LABORATORY PERSONNEL
Yes No N/A
1. Enough analysts present to perform the analyses necessary.
Yes No N/A
2. Analysts have on hand the necessary references for EPA procedures being used.
Yes No N/A
3. Analysts trained in procedures performed through formal or informal training or
certification programs.
Chapter 7 - Page 146
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 8 -
TOXICITY
Contents
A. Objectives 148
B. Requirements of WET Testing 149
Types of WET Testing 149
WET Test Components 150
Effluent 151
Dilution Water 152
Test System 154
Test Organisms 154
Reference Toxicants 156
Conduct of the Test(s) 157
Recordkeeping and Data Reporting 157
Review Checklist 158
C. Analysis of WET Data 159
D. Toxicity Reduction Evalutions and Toxicity IDentification Evaluations (TRES/TIEs) 168
E. References 170
List of Tables
Table 8-1. Recommended Effluent Sampling Strategies for Continuous and Intermittent
Discharges for Flow-Through, Static Renewal, and Static Toxicity Tests3 153
Table 8-2. Summary of TAC per EPA Method 165
Related Websites
Office of Science and Technology/Engineering and Analysis Division Methods home page (including
Whole Effluent Toxicity): https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effluent-toxicity-methods
Office of Wastewater Management/Water Permits Division National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permits Program—Whole Effluent Toxicity home page: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-
permit-limits#wet
Office of Wastewater Management/Water Permits Division - Recorded Webinars and Training - Whole
Effluent Toxicity (WET) Training: https://www.epa.gOv/npdes/npdes-training#wettraining (Note:
Module 8, NPDES WET Compliance and Enforcement)
Chapter 8 - Page 147
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. OBJECTIVES
Toxicity is a characteristic of a substance (or group of substances) that causes adverse effects in
organisms. Adverse effects include an increased rate of morbidity (the rate of occurrence of
disease) and mortality (the rate of occurrence of death), as well as those effects that limit an
organism's ability to survive in nature, such as impaired reproductive ability, mobility or growth.
Toxicity of a substance is measured by observing the responses of organisms to increasing
concentrations of that substance. One substance is more toxic than another when it causes the
same adverse effects at a lower concentration.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits program parameter designed to evaluate the toxicity of the entire wastestream as
opposed to its individual components. WET testing may be performed or evaluated as part of
one of five NPDES inspections:
• Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI)
• Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI)
• Performance Audit Inspection (PAI)
• Toxics Sampling Inspection (XSI)
• Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection
In addition, an inspector should consider the toxicity of a municipal treatment plant's effluent
as part of Pretreatment Compliance Inspections (PCIs), since the effluent toxicity may originate
from industrial or commercial discharges to the municipal treatment plant.
EPA test methods manuals for Whole Effluent Toxicity testing can be accessed at:
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effluent-toxicity-methods.
The inspector should understand the permittee's WET testing requirements so that the
appropriate objectives can be met. These objectives may include:
• Assess compliance with NPDES permit conditions.
• Assess NPDES permit conditions for clear and inclusive language.
• Consider overall laboratory WET test performance (reference toxicants and other WET
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements) especially EPA's minimum WET
test methods' Test Acceptability Criteria (TAC).
• Evaluate quality of self-monitoring data.
• Assess adequacy of self-monitoring procedures.
• Document presence or absence of toxic conditions.
• Identify need to perform Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) and/or a Toxicity
Identification Evaluation (TIE).
• Identify permit terms and conditions that may not be strong enough to ensure state
WET water quality standards are met.
Chapter 8 - Page 148
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B. REQUIREMENTS OF WET TESTING
WET tests are techniques to determine the toxicity of a permittee's discharge or effluent by
measuring the responses of organisms to varying concentrations of the facility's effluent and
test dilution water. The EPA WET test methods, as revised November 2002, are specified in 40
CFR Part 136 and described in the EPA WET test methods manuals (accessible at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effluent-toxicity-methods). This section provides
general background on WET tests and guidance for inspectors to consider when performing
various types of inspections concerning WET tests (laboratory performance, effluent sampling,
shipping, records, etc.).
TYPES OF WET TESTING
Depending on the EPA WET test required under a NPDES permit, the WET test designs may vary
according to nationally standardized testing and where applicable, regional specific protocols.
They vary in the number of test organisms used, duration of the test (acute or chronic), or in
the way in which the effluent contacts the organism (flow-through, static, static renewal). The
permitting authority will select the appropriate WET test design depending on the suspected
toxicants present and the intended use of the WET test results. For example, a preliminary
Range screening or T-test WET uses comparatively fewer organisms than the full scale WET test
(five test concentrations plus a control treatment) because the results are derived from the
comparison of a single effluent test concentration to the control treatment. This initial
screening WET test is usually conducted to assess if toxicity is present and should be followed
up with a multiple concentration WET test to generate a dose-response curve unless the
statistical analysis used was designed for a two concentration WET test and is sufficiently robust
for interpreting WET data generated from a T-test. WET data interpretation and analysis is
discussed in more detail in Section C of this chapter. The more common EPA WET tests have
requirements that include a multi-concentration dilution series consisting of a control
treatment (no effluent) and five effluent test concentrations (serial dilutions of effluent sample
plus dilution water, except for the 100-percent effluent test concentration). EPA WET test
methods have minimum mandatory test acceptability criteria (TAC) that must be met for the
WET test and its results to be considered a valid WET test.
EPA WET tests have method specific requirements that include: the number of test organisms
per test chamber, the number of test replicates per test dilution, a test design of a control
treatment plus five effluent dilution test concentrations, and specified test durations for acute
and chronic testing. See the EPA WET test methods for more details. The response of each
organism in each test concentration is observed and recorded. The toxicity of the effluent
sample is determined by analyzing the response of the test organisms in relation to the effluent
test concentration to which the organisms were exposed.
WET testing may be performed as either acute or chronic tests in accordance with standardized
EPA WET test methods. The terms acute and chronic refer to the length of time that the
organisms are exposed to the toxicant, and the respective WET test endpoints (i.e., acute-
lethal, chronic-lethal and sub-lethal). The duration of the tests is prescribed in the WET test
Chapter 8 - Page 149
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
method specified in the NPDES permit. Generally, acute tests measure short-term extreme
negative effect responses, such as death or a debilitating physiological disorder. A test organism
response to toxicity observed within 96 hours or less is typically considered an acute
measurement. Chronic tests involve a causative agent that lingers or continues for a relatively
longer period, often one-tenth of an organism's lifespan or more. "Chronic" should be
considered a relative term depending on the lifespan of an organism. WET chronic tests
typically run for seven days. A chronic effect may result in negative responses such as death
(lethal end point), as well as stunted growth and reduced mobility or reproductive rates (sub-
lethal endpoints).
Common test responses indicating the presence of toxic conditions include:
• Death—increase in number of organisms killed by a test solution when compared to the
control treatment.
• Inhibited growth—measurement of reduction in growth (including mean weight of an
organism) compared to the control treatment.
• Reduced reproduction or mobility—measurement of reduction in reproductive rates or
mobility compared to the control treatment.
• Terata—increase in number of gross abnormalities shown in early life stages compared
to the control treatment.
Other WET test design terms describe the way that test organisms are physically exposed to
WET test concentrations such as: flow-through, static renewal, and static. In a flow-through
test, effluent and dilution water are mechanically renewed continuously. This test setup
requires specialized equipment (a serial or proportional dilutor or syringe pumps) and has
higher operating costs than a static test. In a static renewal test, the test solutions are replaced
periodically (usually daily) with fresh effluent and dilution water. In a static test, the solutions
used at the start of the test are not replaced for the test's duration. Both static renewal and
static tests require less sophisticated equipment. The decision of which WET test design type is
required should be specified in the NPDES permit for both acute and/or chronic tests according
to the respective EPA's WET test methods (40 CFR Part 136 and EPA Pacific West Coast
methods (EPA, 1995)), which can be incorporated by reference.
WET TEST COMPONENTS
The following discussions pertain primarily to issues in a laboratory audit.
WET tests, as defined in EPA WET test methods (40 CFR Part 136 or EPA's Pacific West Coast
WET methods), consist of the following components:
• Sampling, including a chain-of-custody form.
• Effluent.
• Receiving water.
• Dilution water (preferably the receiving water but in some instances a synthetic water
approved by the regulatory agency).
Chapter 8 - Page 150
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Testing system.
• Test organisms (in house mass cultures or externally purchased).
• QA/QC requirements, including EPA WET test method TACs.
• Reference toxicants.
• WET test data evaluation and analysis.
As described in the EPA approved WET test methods, organisms in the testing system are
exposed to a combination of effluent and dilution water to produce WET test results. Each
component of the test, including food items, must be of a specific quality for successful toxicity
testing. The inspector should determine if the test components adhere to the requirements
specified in the NPDES permit and the NPDES EPA WET test method referenced or incorporated
into the NPDES permit's general conditions section (e.g., EPA's WET test methods at 40 CFR Part
136). The inspector should review the permittee's sampling logbook, chain-of-custody forms,
source of WET test organisms used and the testing laboratory reports for the information
necessary to assess the quality of the test components.
Each component has specific requirements (e.g., sample location for the effluent, maximum
sample holding time, dilution water constituents, health of the test organisms, appropriate
choice of test apparatus materials). Accurate and reproducible test results can only be expected
when the critical test components are handled properly. It is, therefore, very important to
understand the relationships between these test components and the critical factors that
determine the acceptability (e.g., to be considered a valid WET test) of each based on quality
assurance requirements and to ensure the validity of the generated WET test results. During a
NPDES inspection, the inspector is likely to encounter the critical factors described in the
following sections.
EFFLUENT
The effluent sampling strategy should be specified in the NPDES permit. Effluent samples must
be representative of the entire final effluent discharge and free of contamination from other
sources. The monitoring frequency selected by the permitting authority should be specified in
the NPDES permit and should be representative of the permitted effluent discharge including
accounting for the variability of the effluent due to several possible factors including but not
limited to seasonal changes, facility process variations, available receiving water dilution (if
allowed by state water quality standards or permitting regulations for mixing zones), etc.
Samples collected to be shipped to an off-site laboratory must be maintained at a temperature
ranging from 0° to 6°C by chilling the sample(s) to 6°C during or immediately after collection,
shipped in ice to the designated testing laboratory accompanied by a chain-of-custody form,
and refrigerated (0° to 6°C) upon receipt by the testing laboratory.
The type and frequency of samples taken (e.g., grab, composite) must be consistent with those
required in the NPDES permit. For flow-through tests that are not done by pumping effluent
directly into dilutors, daily sample sizes must be sufficient to supply the dilutor for periods
ranging from 24 to 36 hours. This volume will depend on the type of WET test being conducted
and the number of dilutions being run. For static renewal tests, daily sample volumes should be
Chapter 8 - Page 151
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
sufficient to replenish all dilutions in the test series and provide separate containers of the
dilutions to allow for dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity, temperature and other chemical
analyses without contaminating the test dilutions. This volume will depend on the type of WET
test being conducted and dilutions being run. For static-renewal toxicity tests, composite and
grab samples for 7-day chronic testing requires the use of an original sample and two renewal
samples over the duration of the test. Preferably, and after using the original sample, renewal
samples should be put into use on days 3 and 5 of testing. Table 8-1 provides guidance as to
representative sampling strategies for various situations. For some volatile toxicants that are
acutely toxic (e.g., chlorine), standard composite sampling does not yield an effluent sample
that is representative of the actual permitted effluent discharge due to volatilization of chlorine
during sampling, shipping and holding. On-site flow-through testing would yield more
appropriate WET test results where, considering available dilution, the effluent contains
measurable amounts of chlorine.
Samples for on-site laboratory testing should be used immediately when practical, but must be
used within 36 hours of collection. It is usually not possible to refrigerate the large-volume
samples (200 liters or more) that are required for flow-through fish tests, but all other samples
should be either iced or refrigerated if they are not to be used immediately. Note: hand-
delivered samples used on the same day of collection do not need to be cooled at 0° to 6°C
prior to WET test initiation.
As a minimum requirement in all cases, tests should be initiated within 36 hours of collection.
In the case of short-term chronic tests, samples taken on days one, three, and five may be held
for a longer period of time to complete the test. In no case should preservatives be added to or
chemical disinfection performed on the effluent sample(s) prior to being tested for toxicity, nor
should the effluent samples be dechlorinated unless the permit specifically allows for sample
dechlorination.
DILUTION WATER
The choice of dilution water to use in WET tests should be specified in the NPDES permit and
depends on the purpose of the toxicity test. Synthetic dilution water is used to evaluate the
inherent toxicity of the effluent. Dilution water from the receiving stream or a nontoxic
equivalent is used to test for interactions after an effluent discharge thoroughly mixes with the
receiving water (where state laws allow for a mixing zone). Receiving waters, synthetic waters,
or synthetic waters adjusted to approximate receiving water characteristics may be used for
dilution water, if the water meets the qualifications for an acceptable dilution water. EPA WET
test methods manuals describe various techniques for the preparation of synthetic dilution
water that may be necessary to use if the natural receiving water exhibits unacceptable levels
of toxicity. Under no circumstances should the dilution water cause toxic responses in the WET
test organisms. A lack of toxic responses or observed impacts to the control treatment
organisms is one indicator of the possible suitability of the dilution water. EPA WET test
methods specify mandatory TACs for test organisms in control treatments for each test species
for both acute and chronic tests for both lethal and sub-lethal endpoints. TAC is further
discussed in Section C of this chapter.
Chapter 8 - Page 152
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Dilution water obtained from receiving waters should be collected following all sampling
procedures including the use of a chain-of-custody form, and should be used immediately for
testing. If the dilution water will not be used within 24 hours, it should be refrigerated (0° to
6°C) as soon as it is collected. In any case, to ensure that no appreciable change in toxic
characteristics occurs before testing, the holding time from the time the receiving water sample
is collected to the first use of the receiving water sample in the WET test initiation must not
exceed 36 hours unless a variance has been granted. If a delay in the WET test initiation of up to
36 hours is necessary, the receiving water samples must be stored under strict conditions (i.e.,
temperatures of 0° to 6°C). The location of the receiving water sample should be noted in the
permittee's sampling log and the chain-of-custody form. It should be upstream and out of the
influence of the permitted outfall. The location should be free of other sources of
contamination (e.g., other facility outfalls).
Table 8-1. Recommended Effluent Sampling Strategies for Continuous and Intermittent
Discharges for Flow-Through, Static Renewal, and Static Toxicity Tests3
Continuous Discharge
ACUTE
ACUTE
Retention Time
Retention Time
TEST TYPE
CHRONIC
< 14 Days
>14 Days
Flow-
through**
-
Two Grab samples daily; early
a.m. and late p.m.
One grab sample daily.
Static Renewal
3x 24-hour composite
samples, every other
day.
Four separate grab samples each
day for four concurrent tests.
One grab sample on first
day.
Static
Single 24-hour
composite sample on
first day.
Four separate grab samples on
first day for four concurrent tests.
One grab sample on first
day.
Intermittent Discharge
ACUTE
Continuous
ACUTE
TEST TYPE
CHRONIC
Discharge During
1 or 2 Adjacent
8-Hour Shifts
ACUTE
Discharge from
Batch Treatment
Discharge to
Estuary on
Outgoing Tide
Flow-Throughb
One grab sample
midway through
shifts daily.
One grab sample
of discharge daily.
One grab sample
of discharge daily.
Static Renewal
3x 24-hour composite
samples collected for
duration of discharge
unless discharge ceases.
One grab sample
midway through
shifts on first day.
One grab sample
of discharge daily.
One grab sample
of discharge daily.
Static
Composite sample
collected for duration of
discharge, first day.
One grab sample
midway through
shifts on first day.
One grab sample
of discharge on
first day.
One grab sample
of discharge on
first day.
a Sampling requirements should be clearly specified in the permit.
b For flow-through tests, it is always preferable to pump directly to the dilutor.
Chapter 8 - Page 153
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
TEST SYSTEM
WET tests may be performed in a fixed or mobile laboratory. Depending on the scope of the
program, facilities may include equipment for rearing, holding, and acclimating test organisms.
Temperature control is achieved using circulating water baths, heat exchangers, or
environmental chambers. Holding, acclimation, and dilution water should be temperature
controlled and aerated whenever possible. Air used for aeration must be free of oil and fumes;
filters to remove oil in the air are desirable. Test facilities must be well-ventilated and free of
fumes. During holding, acclimating, and testing, conditions should remain as constant as
possible and test organisms should be shielded from external disturbances (held under the
same conditions as those used for testing). Reference toxicants should be properly stored in a
closed area separate from the WET testing areas.
Any materials that contact either the effluent or dilution water must not release, absorb, or
adsorb toxicants. Many choices for test equipment are available. Properly prepared (see
discussion at end of this section) glassware and stainless steel are generally acceptable for
effluent freshwater holding, mixing, and transfer to WET test chambers. Stainless steel,
however, is not acceptable for saltwater systems. Square-sided glass aquaria should be held
together with small beads of silicone adhesive, with any unnecessary adhesive removed from
inside the aquaria. If stainless steel containers are used, they must be welded, not soldered.
Other specialized containers of Nitex or Teflon™ are also acceptable. Tanks for storing effluents
and dilution water may also be made of fiberglass. All containers or tubes made from these
materials are reusable with appropriate cleaning (see below).
Polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, and Tygon® may also be used for
containers or tubing, but should be checked for toxicity before being used in a WET test.
Because these materials may absorb toxicants during a test, their reuse is discouraged to
prevent absorbed toxicants from leaching into new effluent or dilution water.
Copper, galvanized metal, brass, lead, and rubber must not contact the testing solutions at any
time.
New plastic ware (from a known nontoxic source) can be used after rinsing with dilution water.
New glassware should be soaked overnight in dilute (20 percent) nitric or hydrochloric acid,
rinsed in tap water, and then rinsed with dilution water before use.
Glassware and stainless steel components that must be reused should be soaked in an
appropriate detergent used for toxicity testing and scrubbed (or washed in a laboratory
dishwasher), rinsed twice with tap water, rinsed with dilute acid, rinsed twice with tap water,
rinsed with full strength acetone, rinsed twice with tap water, and then rinsed with dilution
water before use. Glassware for algae tests should be neutralized in sodium bicarbonate before
use.
TEST ORGANISMS
Organisms used for toxicity testing are limited to certain species for which there are established
EPA WET testing protocols (40 CFR Part 136 and EPA Pacific West Coast WET Test methods
Chapter 8 - Page 154
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(EPA, 1995)). Some examples of freshwater and saltwater test species commonly used in WET
tests include: a) freshwater—daphnids (water flea, invertebrate) and fathead minnows (fish
vertebrate); b) saltwater—algae (plant), mysids (shrimp, invertebrate) and silversides (fish
vertebrate). The life stage, source, acclimation and feeding procedures, presence of disease,
and the number of organisms placed in test chambers all affect the degree to which test
organisms respond to toxicants. Therefore, it is important that these factors comply with EPA's
required WET test method procedures. Test conditions for various types of tests and organisms
are summarized in the test acceptability criteria tables that can be accessed at
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effluent-toxicity-methods.
The inspector should ascertain, as closely as possible, that the following procedures are being
observed:
• The correct test organisms (including the choice of test organisms to account for species
sensitivity for the tested effluent, the most sensitive species must be used under the
NPDES permit regulations for reasonable potential determinations (40 CFR
122.44(d)(l)(ii)) must be utilized in the test (most often as specified in the NPDES
permit). "Wild" (e.g., collected from the receiving stream) organisms are rarely
appropriate in WET testing.
• The laboratory should record the source of test organisms (hatchery, in-house, or
elsewhere). Also, test organisms used in toxicity testing must be of known history, free
of disease, and acclimated to test conditions. Culture information should be recorded.
Test organisms must be of the appropriate age and the appropriate number of
organisms must be used in each WET test chamber before initiating a WET test.
• A daily log (that is a daily bench sheet for each WET test being performed) should be
kept by the laboratory concerning the WET test organisms including: feeding, mortality,
reproduction, growth, mobility, and any abnormal behavioral observations.
Measurements for each test chamber should be recorded such as pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, etc. to ensure optimal testing conditions are maintained.
• The testing laboratory must adhere to the following procedures for holding test
organisms:
- Test organisms purchased may be used to start mass cultures. However, if the
organisms are to be used for WET chronic testing, then at the start of the test they
must be no more than 48 hours old (if fish, purchased and shipped) or no more than
24 hours old (if fish, not shipped, or if freshwater invertebrates such as Ceriodaphnia
dubia). Freshwater invertebrates used in a test must have been released within an 8-
hour period, to avoid impacts on reproductive performance.
- Maintain DO levels above 4 mg/L for warm water species and above 6 mg/L for cold
water species.
• Test organisms should not be subjected to changes of more than 2 units of pH in any 24-
hour period or 3 degrees of temperature in any 12-hour period.
Chapter 8 - Page 155
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Test organisms should be fed according to the EPA WET test method requirements for
the WET test. When feeding is necessary for mysid or fish tests, excess food should be
removed daily during renewal by aspirating with a pipette, to avoid problems such as
food buildup leading to excessive oxygen demand.
• Test organisms should be handled as little as possible to minimize stress:
- Dip nets should be used for large organisms (e.g., salmonids).
- Pipettes should be used for transferring small organisms such as juvenile fathead
minnow, fry minnows, silverside fry, and, daphnid or midge larvae.
REFERENCE TOXICANTS
Reference toxicants are used to evaluate the health and sensitivity of WET test organisms over
time and for documenting initial and ongoing laboratory performance. A laboratory performs a
definitive toxicity test with a reference toxicant at least once per month for each toxicity test
method conducted in that month. The monthly WET test results are plotted on a control chart
to track trends in organism health or sensitivity.
Although EPA does not require the use of specific reference toxicants or set required
acceptance ranges for reference toxicants for reference toxicant testing, EPA does recommend
that laboratories conduct frequent reference toxicant tests. EPA recommends that the results
of these reference toxicant tests be used to evaluate the health and sensitivity of the test
organisms over time and for documenting initial and ongoing laboratory performance. Testing
laboratories must perform at least one acceptable reference toxicant test per month for each
type of toxicity test method conducted in that month regardless of the source of test
organisms. If a test method is conducted only monthly, or less frequently, a reference toxicant
test must be performed concurrently with each effluent toxicity test to document ongoing
laboratory performance and to assess organism sensitivity and consistency when organisms are
cultured in-house. When organisms are obtained from external suppliers, concurrent reference
toxicant tests must be performed with each effluent sample tested, unless the test organism
supplier provides control chart data from at least the past five months of reference toxicant
testing, which will assess organism sensitivity and health. The EPA WET test method manuals
require a laboratory to obtain consistent, precise results with reference toxicant toxicity tests
with effluents under the NPDES permits. It is important that the reference toxicants should be
securely stored in an area separate and away from the laboratory's mass cultures or purchased
test organisms to prevent unintended exposure or contamination of test organisms by the
reference toxicants. This should be one of the inspector's checklist items when inspecting a
WET laboratory.
An attempt should be made to match the type of reference toxicant used (e.g., metal or
chlorinated organic) to the major pollutant in the wastewater tested. Reference toxicant data
must be included with the testing laboratory report.
Reference toxicant test results should not be used as de facto criteria for rejection of individual
effluent or receiving water tests. The EPA WET test methods manuals provide guidance for
what to do when more than 1 reference test in 20 reference toxicant tests falls outside of
Chapter 8 - Page 156
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
control chart limits, or when a reference toxicant test result falls "well" outside of the control
treatment limits. However, when reference toxicity tests indicate possible anomalies, the
laboratory should investigate sources of variability, take corrective actions to reduce identified
sources of variability, and perform an additional reference toxicant test during the same month.
CONDUCT OF THE TEST(S)
EPA WET test methods should be carried out by analysts who are experienced in the use or
conduct of aquatic tests and the interpretation of data from aquatic toxicity testing. Test
conditions should match those specified in the summary of test condition tables provided for
each EPA WET test method. Physical and chemical measurements taken during the test (e.g.,
temperature, pH, and DO) must be conducted at the minimum frequency specified in the EPA
WET test method manuals. The appropriate procedures are described in each EPA WET test
method section of the manuals, by following the table of specified test conditions and required
TACs.
RECORDKEEPING AND DATA REPORTING
Proper recordkeeping is essential to an effective NPDES WET test monitoring program. Entities
collecting samples for WET testing should consistently use chain-of-custody (COC) procedures
to document effluent or receiving water sample transfer. Hand-written entries on bench sheets
and COC tags must generally be clear and legible. The analyst should maintain a sample log
containing information as to the date, time, and type of sample taken as well as the sampler's
name. Unusual conditions should be noted. When evaluating the contract lab's WET test data
reporting, the inspector should verify that the following are included:
• Summary of test results, description of test conditions, material tested, test dilution
water and other data for quality assurance.
• Methods used for all analyses. The method title, method number, and method source
should be provided in the laboratory standard operating procedure (SOP) and test
report. Tests must be conducted as stated in the SOP, and the laboratory should verify
the test was conducted according to the SOP.
• Date and time test started, date and time test terminated, type and volume of test
chambers, volume of solution used per chamber, number of organisms per test
chamber, number of replicate test chambers per treatment.
• The test temperature (mean and range), details of whether test was aerated or not,
feeding frequency, amount and type of food, and any pH control measures taken.
• The test endpoint(s), and any deviation(s) from EPA's WET test methods (40 CFR Part
136 or EPA Pacific West Coast WET test methods (EPA, 1995)) must be clearly noted.
• The reference toxicity results for WET tests conducted for the test period with specific
test details to verify species, temperature, and dilution water used in reference toxicant
test.
• Any acclimation of test organisms (temperature mean and range) and the reason(s) for
acclimation.
Chapter 8 - Page 157
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Any other relevant information.
Any deviations from specifications, as contained in EPA's WET test methods, should be
documented and described in the data report by the testing laboratory. Data results for each
WET test should include the raw toxicity data in tabular form, including daily records of affected
test organisms in each concentration (including control treatments and effluent test
concentration replicates); data in graphical form (plots of toxicity data); and a table of LC50S,
NOECs, IC25, IC50, etc. (as required in the respective NPDES permit). Records should indicate the
statistical approach used to calculate endpoints, include a summary table of physical and
chemical data, and include laboratory documentation of variability as part of the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC). For more information on possible contributing factors to
WET variability and recommendations for reducing it, see section 7.3 of EPA's Understanding
and Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications Under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (EPA, 2000a).
REVIEW CHECKLIST
While WET test reviews are performed as part of a routine NPDES facility inspection and usually
are not comprehensive, the inspector and the permittee should carefully prepare in advance
for the inspection. Laboratory inspection reviews can quickly ascertain if the facility is following
their NPDES permit requirements and, secondarily, identify any obvious problems with
reporting or laboratory performance. Inspectors should refer to the following checklist of
possible issues that can be identified during a NPDES facility inspection.
Yes
No
N/A
Does the facility have a copy of its NPDES permit readily available?
(Recommended: The inspector should bring a copy of the NPDES permit in
the event the permittee does not have a complete copy at the time of
inspection)
Yes
No
N/A
Were the WET tests required by the NPDES permit performed? Check the
permit for the WET testing frequency and any special conditions related to
WET testing, including whether a testing frequency decrease is authorized
and the basis or rationale for decreasing the WET testing frequency (which
should be documented in the NPDES permit fact sheet). This can be done
prior to arriving on-site including contacting the NPDES state permitting
authority or EPA if the state is not NPDES authorized.
Yes
No
N/A
Are all test reports for WET tests performed over the last three years
available for review?
Yes
No
N/A
Are the test reports complete (e.g., bench data sheets for chemicals and
test organisms, reference toxicant test results, chain of custody forms or
tags, statistical analyses)?
Yes
No
N/A
Was the correct type of WET test performed including the choice of an
appropriate (most sensitive species) WET test species used?
Chapter 8 - Page 158
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Yes
No
N/A
Did the effluent samples contain any measurable chlorine, or > 10 mg/l
ammonia?
Yes
No
N/A
Was the WET test initiated within 36 hours of the first effluent sample being
taken? This can be verified by checking the dates and times on the chain-of-
custody forms or tags and bench sheets.
Yes
No
N/A
Did the laboratory or permittee make any judgment decisions beyond their
authority? If Yes, describe:
Yes
No
N/A
Were there any deviations from the appropriate EPA WET test method? See
NPDES permit and EPA WET test methods' test acceptability criteria.
Yes
No
N/A
Were the valid WET test results recorded and did they indicate non-
compliance with the NPDES permits? If Yes, what follow-up actions were
taken by the permittee and/or the permitting authority?
Yes
No
N/A
Were the WET test results reported correctly by the permittee and on the
DMR?
Yes
No
N/A
Was the WET test determined to be invalid due to poor test organism
performance in the control treatment?
Yes
No
N/A
If the WET test was declared invalid, was a new effluent sample collected, a
new WET test performed and reported?
In the case of a PAI, both the laboratory performing the WET tests and the NPDES permittee are
evaluated. This type of inspection requires more extensive information than is presented in this
section. The inspector is therefore referred to the EPA's Manual for the Evaluation of
Laboratories Performing Aquatic Toxicity Tests (EPA, 1991a) for the protocol to perform a PAI.
C. ANALYSIS OF WET DATA
WET test review should be conducted by both the testing laboratory, the permittee, and the
NPDES regulatory authority. A review of WET tests includes: checking the WET test conditions;
checking WET data or WET test results; and checking EPA WET test methods' TAC for test
organisms in the control treatment(s) (and WET test variability for non-lethal endpoints such as
the EPA WET test method's required percent minimum significant different (PMSD)
determinations). Considerations for each of these WET test reviews are discussed below.
WET test results or WET data need to be interpreted so that compliance with the NPDES
permittee's WET permit limits can be determined. For the NPDES permits program, each of EPA
WET test methods contain several recommended statistical approaches. In addition, in 2010
EPA HQ (Water Permits Division/Office of Wastewater Management) developed a statistical
approach referred to as the Test of Significant Toxicity (TST) as another option for statistically
analyzing and interpreting valid WET test data—see EPA's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Test of Significant Toxicity Technical Document (EPA, 2010a).
The following definitions may help the inspector to interpret the WET test results:
Chapter 8 - Page 159
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• The LC50 (for lethal concentration) is the calculated percentage of effluent (point
estimate) at which 50 percent of the organisms die during the test period. Usually, the
LC50 is calculated statistically by computer programs that fit the dose-response curve to
a mathematical function. Computer-based calculation procedures usually print an
estimate of the error associated with the LC50 estimate.
• The EC50 (for effect concentration) is the calculated concentration (point estimate) at
which 50 percent of the organisms indicate a particular impaired response or WET test
measured effect (not necessarily death) due to exposure to a toxicant. For some species
(e.g., Ceriodaphnia dubia—freshwater water flea, invertebrate) where the point of
death is not certain, immobility is often used as a surrogate for death. Results for
responses like the immobility responses in Daphnia (water flea, invertebrate) may be
reported as an EC50 (calculated in the same manner as the LC50). Often, however, no
distinction is made between the EC50 and the LC50 when the response is a surrogate for
death.
• The No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) is the highest tested concentration at
which the organisms' responses are not statistically different from the control treatment
organisms' responses. The NOEC (like the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC)
and Chronic Value (ChV) defined in the following paragraph) is normally determined
only for chronic tests.
• The LOEC is the lowest tested effluent test concentration at which the organisms'
responses are statistically different from those in the control treatments.
• The ChV is the calculated geometric mean of the NOEC and LOEC (the square root of the
product of the NOEC and LOEC).
• The Inhibition Concentration (IC25) is the calculated percentage of effluent (point
estimate) at which the organisms exhibit a 25-percent reduction in a non-quantal
biological measurement such as fecundity or growth.
• The percent effect response measured at the critical dilution is reported. For example,
state water quality standard (WQS) or NPDES permit WET limit may prohibit toxicity at
100 percent effluent or less. In this case, the observed percent effect response at 100
percent effluent would be reported.
• The response may be reported in Toxic Units (TU), either for Acute (TUa) or Chronic (TUC)
test endpoints.
• A no significant toxicity assessment is a recommended statistical analysis alternative
type of NPDES permit limit to a NOEC permit limit, as determined by the EPA's
recommended TST statistical approach. No significant toxicity applies when the value
calculated using a Welch's t-test is significantly different (i.e., greater) than a critical
value. Thus, for NPDES permits, the assessment for no significant toxicity is based on
statistically analyzing the measured effects at the control treatment to an effluent test
concentration, which for NPDES permitting is usually the in-stream waste concentration
or IWC. The IWC should be one of the effluent test concentrations in the WET test
Chapter 8 - Page 160
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
usually bracketed by the other effluent test concentrations in a multiple test
concentration test design.
Overall, there is an inverse relationship between the degree of toxicity and the effluent
concentration percentage causing a toxic response. Therefore, the same toxicity test response
(e.g., LC50), at lower percentages of an effluent concentration indicates higher toxicity than WET
test results at higher percentages of an effluent concentration. So, the magnitude of a TU
indicates the degree of toxicity. TUs are defined as IOO/LC50 for acute and IOO/NOEC for
chronic, with the LC50 or NOEC expressed as a percent effluent concentration. An effluent with
an LC50 of 50 percent has an acute toxicity of 2 acute toxic units (100/50 = 2 TUa). Similarly, an
effluent with a NOEC of 25-percent effluent has a chronic toxicity of 4 chronic toxic units
(100/25= 4 TUC). The major advantage of using toxic units to express toxicity test results is that
toxic units increase linearly as the toxicity of the effluent increases and so the higher the
numeric TU, the greater the magnitude of measured toxicity. Therefore, an effluent with a TUa
of 4 is twice as toxic as an effluent with a TUa of 2. Additionally, the NOEC, LC50, and other
statistical analyses are entered into the national enforcement database, ICIS, as pass/fail,
whereas TUs are entered as a discrete number and can therefore reveal more about toxicity
over time. EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA,
1991b) provides a more extensive discussion of the application of toxic units and the relevance
to NPDES permits.
Review of Test Conditions. For WET test data submitted under NPDES permits, all required EPA
WET test conditions must be met or the WET test is considered invalid and a new WET test is
required using a newly collected effluent sample. Deviations from recommended EPA WET test
mandatory requirements be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the validity of the
WET test results. Deviations from recommended test conditions may or may not invalidate a
WET test result depending on: the degree of the departure from WET test conditions, the
objective of the WET test, and the potential or observed impact of the deviation on the WET
test result. Consideration of these factors should be carefully considered before rejecting or
accepting a WET test result as valid. For example, if dissolved oxygen is measured below 4.0
mg/L in one WET test chamber, the reviewer should consider whether the observed mortality
in that WET test chamber corresponds with the drop in dissolved oxygen. Whereas slight
deviations in WET test conditions may not invalidate an individual WET test result, test
condition deviations that continue to occur frequently in a laboratory may indicate the need for
improved quality control in that laboratory.
Each WET test method has specified acceptable ranges of test conditions that are to be met,
such as temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, salinity, pH, light intensity and duration
of photoperiod, organism loading (numbers or weight per volume), feeding, and cleaning
procedures. WET tests not meeting the test conditions, Test Acceptability Criteria (TAC), and
the non-lethal endpoint percent minimum significant difference (PMSD) for a specific WET test
method should be carefully reviewed by the inspector. Also, the WET test and the WET test
results should be referred to the EPA or state regional biologist and the NPDES regulatory
authority (or permit writer). For each parameter discussed in these tables, the parameter is
either recommended (should do) or required (must do). For example, the chronic Ceriodaphnia
Chapter 8 - Page 161
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
dubia test type is required (must) to be conducted. The inspector should review the EPA WET
test methods for a more extensive discussion of each of the recommended (should) and
required (must) WET test specifications. The EPA WET test methods manuals for Whole Effluent
Toxicity testing can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/whole-effluent-toxicity-
methods.
Review of Calculated WET Test Results. Inspectors should review WET test results (from multi-
concentration tests) reported under the NPDES permits program according to EPA guidance on
the evaluation of concentration-response relationships (EPA, 2000a). This guidance provides
review steps for 10 different concentration-response patterns that may be encountered in WET
test data. Based on the review, the guidance provides one of three determinations:
1. The calculated effect concentrations are reliable and should be reported.
2. The calculated effect concentrations are anomalous and should be explained.
3. The test was inconclusive and a new WET test should be conducted using a newly collected
effluent sample.
It should be noted that the determination of a valid concentration-response relationship is not
always clear cut. Data from some WET tests may suggest consultation with professional
toxicologists and/or NPDES regulatory officials. Tests that exhibit unexpected concentration-
response relationships may indicate a need for further investigation and possibly require a new
WET test to be conducted using a newly collected effluent sample.
Questionable results in an acute test include:
• Higher mortalities in lower effluent test concentrations than in higher effluent test
concentrations.
• 100-percent mortality in all effluent test concentrations.
• Greater percent mortality in the control treatment than in the lower effluent test
concentrations.
Questionable results in a chronic test include:
• Greater growth or reproduction or fewer terata at higher effluent test concentrations
than at lower effluent test concentrations.
• No growth or reproduction or 100-percent terata at all effluent test concentrations.
• Less growth or reproduction or more terata in control treatments than in lower effluent
test concentrations.
When any of these abnormalities occur (outside of experimental error), the results and test
conditions should be reviewed by the EPA and/or state regional biologist or NPDES toxicologist
and reported to the NPDES regulatory authority (permit writer). Part of the inspector's review
may also include a review of the laboratory's WET test data results and an explanation or
interpretation of the WET test results. DMRs are expected to include this information.
Chapter 8 - Page 162
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
In addition to reviewing the concentration-dose response relationship, the inspector should
review within-test variability of individual WET tests. For example, when NPDES permits require
chronic sub-lethal hypothesis testing endpoints (e.g., reproduction for the Ceriodaphnia dubia
test), within-test variability should be reviewed and variability criteria applied as described in
the chapter "Report Preparation and Test Review" of each WET test method.
Within-test variability is measured as the percent minimum significant difference (PMSD), and
is calculated by the test reporting entity, then compared to established upper and lower
bounds for test PMSDs. WET tests conducted under NPDES permits that fail to meet these
variability criteria and that show "no toxicity" at the permitted receiving water concentration
(i.e., not significantly different from the control treatment) are considered invalid WET tests
and a new WET test must be conducted using a newly collected effluent sample. Circumstances
that indicate that the results of the WET test may be questionable include: pH of the water was
less than 6 or greater than 9, feeding schedule used during the test differed from the feeding
schedule recommended in the methods manuals, organism culture was contaminated with
rotifers, or if the test was repeated due to laboratory error. For additional circumstances that
may yield WET test results with questionable variability, the inspector should refer to EPA's
Final Report: Interlaboratory Variability Study of EPA Short-term Chronic and Acute Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test Methods (EPA, 2001a).
To avoid penalizing laboratories that achieve unusually high precision, lower PMSD bounds are
applied when a hypothesis WET test result (e.g., no observed effect concentration NOEC) or
lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) is reported. Lower PMSD bounds are based on the
10th percentiles of national PMSD data. The 10th percentile PMSD represents a practical limit
to the sensitivity of the WET test method because few laboratories can achieve such precision
on a regular basis and most do not achieve it even occasionally. In determining hypothesis WET
test results, an effluent test concentration is not considered toxic if the relative difference from
the control treatment is less than the lower PMSD bounds. See EPA's Understanding and
Accounting for Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications Under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (EPA, 2000a), for specific examples of
implementing lower PMSD bounds.
Review of Test Acceptability Criteria (TAC) for Controls. Each EPA WET test method also has
specific required WET test acceptability criteria or TAC (e.g., minimum control survival) that
must be achieved to be considered a valid WET test result. See the summary of test conditions
and TAC for each specific EPA WET test method. In general, the valid interpretation of WET test
results requires that control treatment organisms must meet minimum TAC for survival,
growth, and/or reproduction as required by the respective EPA WET test methods. A summary
of TACs per EPA WET test method can be found in Table 8-2.
Mortality in control treatments must not exceed 10 percent for acute toxicity tests and 20
percent for chronic tests (or other values as required by states through their regulations). If
organism survival in the control treatments does not meet 90 or 80 percent for an acute or
chronic test, respectively, then the WET test results should not be used for calculating summary
statistics, and a determination of compliance using the WET test results cannot be made. For
Chapter 8 - Page 163
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
chronic tests, test organism in the control treatments must also meet minimum requirements
for growth and reproduction contained in the EPA WET test methods manuals. When using dual
controls, the dilution water control treatment should, through statistical analysis, be used to
determine the acceptability of the WET test control treatment, and for comparisons against the
effluent test concentrations.
Chapter 8 - Page 164
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 8-2. Summary of TAG per EPA Method
Minimu
Minimu
Minimum
m
m
Test
EPA
#
#of Rep
#
Acceptance
Metho
Organism with
Endpoint
Test
per Test
per
Effluent
Test
Criteria
d
Scientific Name
Type
Type
Chamber
Cone.
Cone.
Duration
(TAC)
2000.0
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
Survival
Acute
10
2
5
48-96
hours
>90%
survival in
controls
1000.0
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
Survival
and growth
(larval)
Chroni
c
10
4
5
7 days
>80%
survival in
controls;
average dry
weight per
surviving
organism in
control
chambers
equals or
exceeds
0.25 mg
1002.0
Water flea
Survival
Chroni
1
10
5
Until
>80%
( Ceriodaphnia
and
c
60% of
survival
dubia)
reproductio
n
surviving
control
organis
ms have
3 broods
(6-8
days)
and an
average of
15 or more
young per
surviving
female in
the control
solutions.
60% of
surviving
control
organisms
must
produce
three
broods
1007.0
Mysid shrimp
(Americamysis
bahia)
Survival
and growth
Chroni
c
5
8
5
7 days
>80%
survival-
average dry
weight >
0.20 mg in
controls
Chapter 8 - Page 165
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 8-2. Summary of TAG per EPA Method
Minimu
Minimu
Minimum
m
m
Test
EPA
#
#of Rep
#
Acceptance
Metho
Organism with
Endpoint
Test
per Test
per
Effluent
Test
Criteria
d
Scientific Name
Type
Type
Chamber
Cone.
Cone.
Duration
(TAC)
1016.0
Purple urchin
(Strongylocentrot
us
purpuratus)
or
Sand dollar
(Dendraster
excentricus)
Fertilization
Chroni
c
100
4
4
40 min
(20 min
plus 20
min)
> 70% egg
fertilization
in controls;
%MSD <
25%; and
appropriat
e sperm
counts
1017.0
Giant kelp
Germinatio
Chroni
100 for
5
4
48 hours
>70%
(Macrocystis
n and
c
germinati
germinatio
pyrifera)
germ-tube
length
on 10 for
germ-tube
length
n in
controls; >
10 nm
germ-tube
lengths in
controls;
%MSD of <
20% for
both
germinatio
n and
germ-tube
length
NOEC must
be below
35 ng/L in
reference
toxicant
test
1014.0
Red abalone
(Haliotis
rufescens)
Larval
developme
nt
Chroni
c
100
5
4
48 hours
>80%
normal
larval
developme
nt in
controls
Statistical
significance
@ 56 ng/L
zinc % MSD
< 20%
Chapter 8 - Page 166
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 8-2. Summary of TAG per EPA Method
Minimu
Minimu
Minimum
m
m
Test
EPA
#
#of Rep
#
Acceptance
Metho
Organism with
Endpoint
Test
per Test
per
Effluent
Test
Criteria
d
Scientific Name
Type
Type
Chamber
Cone.
Cone.
Duration
(TAC)
2002.0
Water flea
Survival
Acute
5
4
5
24, 48,
>90%
( Ceriodaphnia
or 96
survival in
dubia)
hours
controls
1003.0
Green algae
Growth
Chroni
10,000cell
4
5
96 hours
Mean cell
(Selenastrum
(cell
c
s/ mL
density of
capricornutum)
counts,
at least 1 X
chlorophyll
106
fluorescenc
cells/mL in
e,
the
absorbance
controls;
, or
variability
biomass)
(CV%)
among
control
replicates
less than or
equal to
20%
Chapter 8 - Page 167
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
D. TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUTIONS AND TOXICITY
IDENTIFICATION EVALUATIONS (TRES/TIES)
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs) and Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIEs) are
procedures used with the EPA's NPDES permits program to enable permittees to identify and
reduce toxicity that is observed using WET tests. EPA's TRE and TIE procedures manuals can be
found at the following website: https://www.epa.gOv/npdes/npdes-permit-limits#wet.
A TRE is a site-specific study of the effluent or wastewater at a treatment facility. The TRE
process is generally a stepwise process that attempts to identify the class of potential toxicants
and, if possible, isolate the chemical causing toxicity. A TRE generally consists of six steps, but
all six steps may not be required depending on the facility site-specific situation. Once the
identification/isolation process has confirmed the potential cause of toxicity, the evaluation
step uses techniques to determine what action(s) is needed to reduce or treat the chemical or
chemicals causing toxicity in the effluent. If the evaluation step is completed successfully, the
TRE should confirm that the actions chosen to reduce toxicity are successful. There are many
possible ways to reduce toxicity depending on the cause of toxicity.
The need for a permittee to conduct a TRE may arise when the NPDES WET permit limit is
exceeded during WET monitoring in accordance with the NPDES permit. NPDES WET permit
limits are established to prevent excursions from state WET water quality standards, so an
exceedance of a WET permit limit can sometimes trigger additional permit requirements. These
permit triggers are actions the permittee must take to identify and resolve the toxicity to come
back into compliance with the permit. Accelerated WET monitoring is a common permit trigger
that can vary from state to state, but there's usually a requirement for more frequent WET
testing over a short time period, generally a few weeks, to determine if the toxicity is
persistent. If the effluent toxicity is not measured at a level that exceeds the permit limit, based
on the data generated by the accelerated WET testing, the permit usually allows for a return to
the previous WET monitoring frequency schedule. If toxicity continues to measure in
exceedance of the WET permit limit, based on the accelerated WET testing data, then the TRE
process is initiated. It is extremely important for the permittee and the permitting authority to
agree upon an adequate work plan (developed by the permittee) that includes a schedule and
reporting requirements throughout the TRE/TIE process, and especially when the TRE is first
initiated.
In practice, most of the TRE work completed by the permittee is conducted through the
permittee's labs or consultants. Therefore, it is important for the EPA or state NPDES permitting
authority to ensure that the TRE process is on track and that the permittee resolves the toxicity
problem in an appropriate and timely manner. The NPDES permitting authority can provide key
recommendations to the permittee to ensure that all available information and possible
strategies are considered in the evaluation. An important recommendation is that the
permittee has a TRE work plan that is sufficiently detailed and includes frequent
communication with the NPDES permitting authority. TRE work plan requirements vary from
Chapter 8 - Page 168
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
state to state, but commonly include schedule and reporting requirements to ensure effluent
toxicity is reduced or eliminated and compliance with the permit is achieved.
A TRE is most likely to be successful if there is a good partnership between the people who
know the facility and the experts in engineering, toxicology, and perhaps hydrology, who know
how to determine the causes of the effluent toxicity. For example, the toxicologist on the team
can help link water quality characteristics to toxicity for different USEPA WET test species.
Regardless of the facility, a TRE almost always starts with a review of available data, such as
influent and effluent chemical and physiochemical data, facility treatment data, and WET test
data. Often, a thorough review of these data can be very useful in helping to determine what
might be causing toxicity in the effluent. Facility treatment information that is often useful in
conjunction with the effluent toxicity data include parameters such as effluent carbonaceous
oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), mixed liquor solids, volatile solids, and
removal rates of COD and BOD based on influent and effluent concentrations. The work plan
should include the data and other information available for the evaluation, any interim reports
or other deliverables to be sent to the NPDES permitting authority, and the roles and
responsibilities of the TRE plan's team members.
One optional step in the six-step TRE approach is to identify the exact cause of effluent toxicity.
This is commonly referred to as a Toxicity Identification Evaluation or TIE. Although not
necessary, a TIE can often be very helpful in a TRE because toxicity can be more certainly
controlled if the identity of the toxicant(s) is known. In general, the TIE is a three-phase process
that characterizes, identifies and confirms the cause or causes of toxicity. Guidance documents
for each of the three phases of toxicity identification evaluations and the Phase I TIE for
chronically toxic effluents can be found at the EPA website provided at the beginning of this
section. A TIE couples effluent chemical analysis and WET test results. Although sometimes it
may take additional effort to identify the exact cause of effluent toxicity, particularly in very
complex effluent situations, experienced WET testing laboratories and consultants can help
ensure that the TIE is not an expensive, time-consuming venture. TIEs are applicable to
evaluating toxicity of permitted effluents, ambient waters and sediments including bulk
sediment or pore waters.
The role of the NPDES permitting authority in TIEs is to support innovative approaches that are
technically feasible and scientifically sound, and to discourage approaches that are costly
and/or not results-oriented. In some instances, the discharger may need to use novel
approaches to identify the cause of toxicity. The NPDES permitting authority can assist the
permittee by providing technical information where appropriate. However, conducting the
TIE/TRE is the responsibility the permittee. The role of the NPDES permitting authority is to
allow the TIE/TRE process to proceed and to confirm that the permittee is making good
progress towards completing the TRE.
In addition to NPDES permit conditions, there are several other mechanisms that the NPDES
permitting authority can use to require a permittee to conduct a TRE. The NPDES permitting
authority can require a TRE through a CWA section 308 letter, a CWA section 309
Chapter 8 - Page 169
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
administrative order, or as part of the Consent Decree requirements in the settlement of a civil
judicial enforcement action. The role of the inspector is to evaluate whether the permittee has
met the TRE/TIE milestones and to verify whether the permittee has implemented the selected
controls and eliminated toxicity.
E. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on toxicity and testing.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991a). Manual for the Evaluation of Laboratories
Performing Aquatic Toxicity Tests. EPA 600-4-90-031.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991b). Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control. EPA 505-2-90-01.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Short-term methods for estimating the chronic
toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to West Coast marine and estuarine organisms.
EPA 600-R-95-136.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996). Clarifications Regarding Flexibility in Part 40 CFR
Part 136 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Methods. EPA Memorandum.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Clarifications Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity
Test Methods Recently Published at Part 40 CFR Part 136 and Guidance on Implementation
of Whole Effluent Toxicity in Permits. EPA Memorandum.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999a). Errata for the Effluent and Receiving Water
Toxicity Testing Manuals. EPA 600-R-98-182.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999b). Whole Effluent Toxicity: Guidelines Establishing
Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants, Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests; Final Rule,
Technical Corrections. Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division.
64 FR 4975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999c). Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Guidance for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Office of Wastewater Management, Water
Permits Division. EPA 833-B-99-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000a). Understanding and Accounting for Method
Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program. Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division.
EPA 833-R-00-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000b). Method Guidance and Recommendations for
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing (40 CFR Part 136). Office of Science and Technology,
Engineering and Analysis Division. EPA 821-B-00-004.
Chapter 8 - Page 170
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001a). Final Report: Inter-laboratory Variability Study
of EPA Short-term Chronic and Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Methods, Vol. 1. Office of
Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division. EPA 821-B-01-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001b). Final Report: Inter-laboratory Variability Study
of EPA Short-term Chronic and Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Methods, Vol. 2: Appendix.
Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division. EPA 821-B-01-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001c). Clarifications Regarding Toxicity Reduction and
Identification Evaluations in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA 821-R-02-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA 821-R-02-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002c). Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. EPA 821-R-
02-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002d). Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants; Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Methods; Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 136.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Test of Significant Toxicity Technical Document. EPA 833-R-10-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Test of Significant Toxicity Implementation Document. EPA 833-R-10-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010c). NPDES Permit Writer's Manual: Chapter 6.
Water Ouality-Based Effluent Limitations. EPA 833-K-10-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Clean Water Act Methods Update Rule for the
Analysis of Effluent - Final Rule. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/mur_final_prepub_12-15-
2016.pdf
Chapter 8 - Page 171
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 9 -
PRETREATMENT
Contents
Review of the General Pretreatment Regulations [[[ 173
Development of 40 CFR Part 403 173
Summary and Background 174
Program Development and NPDES Requirements 175
Approval Authority Responsibilities 180
Control Authority Responsibilities 180
Industry Responsibilities 182
Pretreatment Compliance Inspections and OTHER COMPLIANCE EVALAUTION ACTIVITIES.. 189
Scope of PCIs and Audits 189
PCI Checklist Components and Inspection Report 191
Pretreatment Audit Checklist Components 192
References 193
List of Tables
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations 184
Table 9-2. Categorical Pretreatment Standards 188
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 9-1. Approval Authority versus Control Authority 177
Exhibit 9-2. Pretreatment Implementation Flow Diagram 179
Related Websites
Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) National Pretreatment Program Homepage:
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS
DEVELOPMENT OF 40 CFR PART 403
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate
regulations to control the discharge of pollutants to the Nation's waters to preserve their
physical, chemical, and biological integrity. The CWA addresses the problem of indirect
discharges of pollutants from industrial and commercial users of Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) to waters of the United States by requiring the EPA to promulgate federal
standards for the pretreatment of wastewater discharged to a POTW. See CWA section
307(b)(3). To address indirect discharges from nondomestic users4 to POTWs, EPA has
established the National Pretreatment Program as a component of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. (The NPDES permitting program is the primary
regulatory mechanism to control point-source discharges to the surface waters of the United
States.) Pretreatment regulations apply to all nondomestic sources that introduce pollutants
into a POTW. These sources of indirect discharges are more commonly referred to as Industrial
Users (lUs). The National Pretreatment Program requires industrial and commercial dischargers
to treat or control pollutants in their wastewater before discharge to POTWs that could pass
through or interfere with the treatment plant, impact the collection system, threaten worker
health and safety, or contaminate sludges.
The CWA provides for EPA to approve states to administer their own NPDES program under
prescribed conditions. Authorized state NPDES programs must have authority to issue permits
for discharges from POTW that assure that compliance with pretreatment standards by
significant sources subject to such standards (see CWA section 402(b)(8)).
EPA initially promulgated the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403) on June 26,
1978. The regulations have been revised and updated multiple times. The most recent
significant update to the Pretreatment Regulations was promulgated on October 14, 2005 (70
FR 60134). The 2005 rule, known as the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, includes revisions that
reduce the overall regulatory burden on both industrial users of the POTW system (lUs) and the
pretreatment program Control Authorities (as explained below and defined in 40 CFR 403.3)
without adversely affecting environmental protection. The rule is available at
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-pretreatment-streamlining-rule-fact-sheets. It differs from
other major amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations in that it increased POTW
flexibility in program implementation, allowing, in certain instances, a reduction in minimum
program requirements. Approved pretreatment programs in existence at the time of the
Streamlining Rule are likely based on the older, more restrictive requirements. POTWs may
need to modify their approved pretreatment programs.
4 Pretreatment regulations apply to all nondomestic sources that introduce pollutants into a POTW. These sources
of indirect discharges are more commonly referred to as Industrial Users (Ills).
Chapter 9 - Page 173
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations is provided in Table 9-1. Major technical
changes resulting from final regulatory amendments or court decisions are included in this
table.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
The three specific objectives cited in 40 CFR 403.2 of the General Pretreatment Regulations are
to:
• Prevent the introduction of pollutants that would cause interference with the POTW
system or limit the use and disposal of its sludge.
• Prevent the introduction of pollutants that would pass through the treatment works or
be otherwise incompatible.
• Improve the opportunities to recycle or reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters
and sludges.
In addition, objectives of the pretreatment program include improved POTW worker health and
safety and reduction of influent loadings to sewage treatment plants. Briefly stated, the
definitions for interference and pass through are the following (see 40 CFR 403.3 for exact
definitions):
• "Interference" is a discharge that alone or in conjunction with other discharges, disrupts
the POTW or sludge processes, uses, and disposal, and therefore causes violation of any
requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit or prevents the POTW from using its chosen
sludge use or disposal practice.
• "Pass through" is a discharge that exits the POTWs to waters of the United States in
quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with other discharges,
causes a POTW NPDES permit violation.
The General Pretreatment Regulations detail the procedures, responsibilities, and requirements
of EPA, states, POTWs, and lUs. All regulated entities must properly implement their part of the
pretreatment program for regulatory objectives to be met. The specific responsibilities of each
are explained below.
EPA has chosen to promulgate pretreatment standards at the same time it promulgates
effluent limitations guidelines for industry categories of direct dischargers under CWA sections
301(b) and 304(b). These pretreatment standards are applicable to industrial indirect
dischargers—those discharging to POTWs—and are known as categorical pretreatment
standards. EPA has also developed other nationally applicable pretreatment standards (national
pretreatment standards) under CWA section 307(b) in its General Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources of Pollution at 40 CFR Part 403. Such pretreatment standards are
applicable to any user of a POTW, defined as a source of an indirect discharge (40 CFR 403.3(i)).
These national pretreatment standards include 1) a general prohibition and 2) specific
prohibitions. The general prohibition prohibits any user of a POTW from introducing a pollutant
Chapter 9 - Page 174
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
into the POTW that will cause pass through or interference. As noted above, EPA's regulations
define both pass through and interference. In addition, under the Pretreatment Regulations,
certain POTWs must develop and enforce local limits to implement the general and specific
prohibitions of the regulations at 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1) and (b). Local limits that are developed by
a POTW in accordance with the regulations are pretreatment standards for purposes of section
307(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 403.5(d)). See also 40 CFR 403.3(1) ("The term National Pretreatment
Standard, Pretreatment Standard, or Standard ... includes any prohibitive discharge limits
established pursuant to Part 403.5.").
The term Publicly Owned Treatment Works or POTW means a treatment works as defined by
section 212 of the CWA, which is owned by a state or municipality (as defined by section 502(4)
of the CWA). This definition includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment,
recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also
includes sewers, pipes and other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW
Treatment Plant. The term POTW also means the municipality as defined in section 502(4) of
the CWA, which has jurisdiction over the discharges to and from such a treatment works.
Many of the specific prohibitions for discharge into a POTW system found in 40 CFR 403.5(b)
provide municipalities with the basis for instituting a proactive capacity, management,
operation, and maintenance (CMOM) program; and protecting the collection system from
degradation due to explosion, corrosion, and obstruction. If they are not yet required to
implement a local pretreatment program by the terms of 40 CFR Part 403 or equivalent state
law, then such municipalities should evaluate implementation of local pretreatment controls,
particularly if locations of overflows such as Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and Combined
Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are predictable (based on facility history) and persistent. The
regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 authorize the creation of a local pretreatment program, even if it
is not required by state or federal law.
Guidance manuals developed to assist EPA Regional Offices, States, and POTWs with
implementation of the National Industrial Pretreatment Program are available on EPA's NPDES
Pretreatment Publications website (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-pretreatment-
program-events-training-and-publications#publications). Select publications are listed in
Section C, "References," of this chapter.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND NPDES REQUIREMENTS
The General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(a) 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 also require other POTWs to implement pretreatment programs. A POTW with
an approved local pretreatment program is the "Control Authority." The terms of the POTW
Control Authority's NPDES permit describes its implementation and enforcement
responsibilities with respect to the local pretreatment program. Failure to adequately comply
Chapter 9 - Page 175
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
with its terms constitutes an NPDES violation that could subject the POTW to an enforcement
action.
States with authority to approve local pretreatment programs are responsible for overseeing
and coordinating the development and approval of these local pretreatment programs. Before
state approval is obtained, EPA is the Approval Authority for local pretreatment programs.
States with NPDES pretreatment programs must receive EPA authorization before they may
function as Approval Authorities for pretreatment. The conditions for approval of an NPDES
state pretreatment program are found at 40 CFR 403.10.
The EPA is the Approval Authority until a state is authorized to administer the pretreatment
program. Once a state is authorized, the EPA maintains oversight responsibilities and
enforcement authority. A state can serve as both the Approval Authority for local programs and
as the Control Authority for lUs that discharge to POTWs without an approved local program.
POTWs never serve as Approval Authorities. See Exhibit 9-1 for a visual representation of
Control Authority and Approval Authority. Before any pretreatment inspection, the inspector
should gain a clear understanding of who serves as the Approval Authority and the Control
Authority in the municipality.
Chapter 9 - Page 176
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
STATE
EPA
FATE
STA
POTW
I \
IU IU IU
Approval & Control Authority Industrial User in Approved Program
Approval Authority Control Authority Industrial User
Authorized States
POTW
STATE
EPA
I J
IU IU
IU
Approval & Control Authority Industrial User in Approved Program
Approval Authority Industrial User Non-Authorized States
Non-Authorized States
EPA
STATE
POTW
n
IU IU IU
Approval & Control Authority
I Controll Authority Industrial User
No pretreatment program
States Assuming Direct Responsibility
Under 40 CFR 403.10(e)
Exhibit 9-1, Approval Authority versus Control Authority
Chapter 9 - Page 177
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The NPDES permit issued to a POTW that is required to develop a pretreatment program must
include development and implementation requirements that become enforceable components
of the permit. The General Pretreatment Regulations detail the requirements of a pretreatment
program and implementation of the program. Among other things, POTWs must have the legal
authority to control the contribution the POTW receives from significant industrial users (SIUs)5
through a permit, order or similar means that may include either general or individual control
mechanisms. Individual permits or general control mechanisms authorize the discharge of
wastewater to a POTW upon condition that the discharger complies with the permit terms. An
SIU permit is effective for only a limited period and must be revocable by the issuing authority
at any time for just cause. In addition, the Control Authority's legal authority will typically
include a provision that forbids the discharge of industrial wastewater from an SIU without a
current Industrial User permit.
An IU individual permit or general control mechanism should describe, in a single document, all
the duties and obligations of the permittee including all applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)). At a minimum, it must include the following:
• Prohibited discharge standards, applicable categorical standards, local limits.
• Effluent limits (including Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are based on
applicable general Pretreatment Standards, categorical Pretreatment Standards, local
limits, and state and local law.
• Monitoring and reporting requirements.
• Statement of permit duration.
• Statement of nontransferability.
• Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalty.
• Requirements to control slug discharges if determined by the POTW to be necessary.
Permits should not simply reference the applicable laws, but they must contain effluent
limitations (expressed in terms of concentration or mass of pollutants that may be discharged
over a given period including applicable BMPs), schedules for monitoring and reporting,
requirements regarding sampling location and scope, and actual civil and criminal penalties as
set forth by the POTW's legal authority. Such conditions must reflect the most stringent of
applicable federal, state, and local Pretreatment Standards and Requirements.
5 The term significant industrial user is defined at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(l).
Chapter 9 - Page 178
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
States without Pretreatment Authority
Montana
(NPDES permitting
authority)
EPA
(Pretreatment
approval authority)
issues
NPDES
permit
oversees
issues
NPDES
permit
regulates
industrial Users
Industrial Users
Montana
(NPDES permitting
authority)
EPA
(Pretreatment
control authority)
POTW without
Approved
Pretreatment:
Program
POTW with
Approved
Pretreatment
Program
(control authority)
Stales with Pretreatment Authority
issues NPDES
permit & oversees
issues NPDES permit
Substantial
Industrial Users
Industrial Users
POTW with
Approved
Pretreatment
Program:
(control authority)
POTW without
Approved
Pretreatment
Program
Utah
(Pretreatment approval authority
& NPDES permitting authority)
Utah
(Pretreatment control authority
& NPDES permitting authority)
Exhibit 9-2. Pretreatment Implementation Flow Diagram
Chapter 9 - Page 179
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
APPROVAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITIES
The EPA Regional Office or an approved state administers a pretreatment program. The
principal tasks for which an Approval Authority (EPA Regional Office or delegated state) is
responsible are the following:
• Reviewing and approving POTW pretreatment programs and minor modifications (see
"Control Authority Responsibilities" for what Control Authority program development
entails).
• Overseeing POTW program implementation—i.e., conducting Pretreatment Compliance
Inspections (PCIs) and audits—and reviewing annual report reviews.
• Providing POTWs with technical assistance on the requirements of the General
Pretreatment Regulations, categorical pretreatment standards, and POTW pretreatment
program requirements.
• Notifying POTWs of new and existing program requirements.
• Determining SIU and POTW compliance with all applicable federal requirements.
• Applying and enforcing pretreatment standards and requirements at lUs discharging to
POTWs that do not have an approved local pretreatment program.
• Initiating enforcement action against noncompliant POTWs or lUs.
The General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 of identify the requirements a state
must meet to receive approval of the pretreatment program as part of its NPDES authority, that
is, to become an Approval Authority. For states preferring to assume the responsibility of
directly regulating lUs discharging to POTWs and, hence, being considered the Control
Authority in lieu of POTWs within the state, 40 CFR 403.10(e) provides that option.
CONTROL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITIES
Before the Approval Authority approves a POTW to operate the local Authority's pretreatment
program as the Control Authority, the Approval Authority (EPA or State) is the Control Authority
for lUs discharging to the POTW. After program approval, the Control Authority becomes
responsible for implementing the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403.8(f)), its
approved local POTW pretreatment program, and the requirements of its NPDES permit. Note
the POTW must comply with its NPDES permit regardless of program approval. To fully
implement the pretreatment program throughout the entire service area, the Control Authority
has responsibilities related to several specific areas:
• As provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1), the Control Authority must have the legal authority
to:
- Deny (or condition) any new or increased contribution to the POTW from each IU.
- Require lUs to comply with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements.
- Require development of compliance schedules for the installation of technology
necessary to meet pretreatment standard.
Chapter 9 - Page 180
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Control through permit, order, or similar means the contribution of each IU to
ensure compliance with applicable pretreatment requirements.
- Require submission of notices and self-monitoring reports as necessary to assure IU
compliance and carry out all required inspections, surveillance, and monitoring
necessary to determine industrial user compliance.
- Enter premises of lUs to assure compliance.
- Obtain remedies for noncompliance including seeking injunctive relief for
noncompliance; Seeking or assessing civil or criminal penalties of at least $1,000 a
day per violation; Immediately halting a discharge that presents or appears to
present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons or to the
environment or that threatens to interfere with the POTW's operation.
- Comply with confidentiality requirements.
- Develop and enforce an adequate sewer use ordinance, and if necessary,
interjurisdictional agreements.
• As provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2) and 403.5(c), the Control Authority must develop and
implement procedures to ensure compliance with pretreatment standards including:
- Identify and locate all possible lUs that may be subject to the pretreatment program.
- Identify the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW.
- Notify all lUs of appropriate pretreatment standards, any changes to the regulations,
and applicable requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
- Update the industrial survey to identify new lUs that should be regulated by the
Control Authority's pretreatment program, and identify changes in manufacturing
processes and wastewater discharge characteristics at existing facilities.
- Identify categorical lUs that qualify as non-significant categorical lUs or middle tier
lUs and determine appropriate permitting and monitoring requirements if state and
local legal authority allows the control authority to make such designations.
- Maintain a list of SlUs and submit updates to the Approval Authority annually.
• As provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2), to ensure IU compliance, the Control Authority must:
- Establish reporting, inspection, and monitoring requirements and procedures to
enable evaluation of compliance, including proper QA/QC and chain-of-custody
procedures for sampling and analysis.
- Inspect and sample lUs. At a minimum, SlUs must be sampled and inspected at least
once a year.
- Evaluate each SIU at least once for the need for a slug discharge control program.
- Perform sampling and analysis in a manner to produce evidence admissible in
enforcement proceedings or in judicial actions.
- Develop and implement an Enforcement Response Plan to guide compliance
evaluation and enforcement activities.
Chapter 9 - Page 181
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Evaluate industry compliance by reviewing and analyzing industrial user self-
monitoring reports and Control Authority monitoring data.
- Investigate instances of noncompliance.
- Initiate appropriate enforcement action to bring users into compliance.
- Establish other procedures as required and/or determined to be needed to regulate
the SlUs discharging to the POTW.
• As provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii), the Control Authority must develop and
implement procedures to comply with public participation requirements of EPA
regulations, including:
- Develop and implement a procedure to evaluate lUs that are in significant
noncompliance as defined in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii).
- Publish at least annually, in the local newspaper with the greatest circulation, a list
of the lUs that were in significant noncompliance within the past 12 months.
- Notify the public of any changes to the sewer use ordinance or local limits after
approval by the Approval Authority.
- Submit substantial pretreatment program modifications to the Approval Authority
and notify the Approval Authority of non-substantial modifications.
• Data management:
- Maintain records of pertinent industrial user activities and compliance status,
including compliance with Best Management Practices (BMP) requirements.
- Maintain a current understanding of the categorical pretreatment standards and
General Pretreatment Regulations, and notify lUs of any changes.
- Provide the Approval Authorities with any reports required.
• As provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(3), the Control Authority must:
- Provide adequate resources and qualified personnel for program implementation.
INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITIES
Industrial dischargers to POTWs must comply with the following:
• Prohibited Discharge Standards—The general and specific prohibited discharge
standards (40 CFR 403.5) noted in Table 9-1 and any specific local limits required to
implement the prohibitions.
• Appropriate Pretreatment Standards—Categorical pretreatment standards (40 CFR Parts
405-471), state requirements.
• Reporting Requirements—As required by 40 CFR 403.12 or 403.3, and/or by the Control
Authority. The requirements provided in 40 CFR 403.12 are summarized in Table 9-1.
• POTW Requirements—As specified in the approved POTW's legal authority.
Chapter 9 - Page 182
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The categories for which the EPA has developed categorical pretreatment standards are listed
in Table 9-2. IUs that meet a pretreatment standard's applicability are considered categorical
lUs. Categorical pretreatment standards are national, uniform, technology-based standards that
apply to dischargers to POTWs from specific industrial categories (i.e., indirect dischargers).
They are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTW. Dischargers subject to categorical
pretreatment standards are required to comply with those standards by a specified date,
typically no more than three years after the effective date of the categorical standard. EPA
develops these standards at the same time it is developing effluent limitations guidelines for
specific industry categories and typically, like effluent limitations. These categorical
pretreatment standards apply to the wastewaters from specific manufacturing processes. The
standards apply at the point of discharge from the pretreatment unit for the regulated process,
or if there is no pretreatment unit, they apply at the end of the regulated process.
As previously noted, EPA has also developed national pretreatment standards that apply to all
indirect dischargers that include general prohibitions (i.e., no pass through or interference) and
specific prohibitions (e.g., no introduction of pollutants that create a fire hazard). To protect the
POTW system from interference, pass through, and sludge contamination or any of the specific
prohibitions, the Control Authority must develop and enforce local limits to control the
introduction of such pollutants. These local limitations are generally applied at the point where
the industrial facility discharges to the POTW.
Where there is both a categorical pretreatment standard and local limit applied over the same
time period (e.g., both daily maximum limits), a categorical industrial user must meet the
categorical pretreatment standard or the local limit for each pollutant regulated, whichever is
the more stringent. The point at which the Control Authority's local limit applies may differ
from the point at which the categorical pretreatment standard applies. In this case, the control
authority must either calculate an adjustment to the categorical pretreatment standard to
compare it to the local limit or sample at both points to determine compliance with both the
categorical pretreatment standards and local limits.
When evaluating the pretreatment standards to determine the appropriate limitation, the
inspector should understand that different categorical pretreatment standards are developed
for each type of industry. If the industry combines the flows from more than one regulated
process or combines a regulated process flow with other flows before these wastes are treated,
the Control Authority and the industry must adjust the categorical pretreatment standard using
the Combined Wastestream Formula (CWF). The equation is provided in 40 CFR 403.6(e) of the
General Pretreatment Regulations. If the wastewaters are mixed after treatment, the
categorical pretreatment standards must still be adjusted, in this case by flow weighted
averaging of all flows introduced prior to the sample point. In either case, the resulting
alternative limit cannot be set below the level of detection for that pollutant. Additional
information on the combined wastestream formula and the flow weighted averaging formula is
provided in EPA's Guidance Manual for Implementing Production-Based Pretreatment
Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula (EPA, 1985) available at
https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0260.pdf.
Chapter 9 - Page 183
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Categorical lUs have specific reporting requirements as per 40 CFR 403.12 and the respective
categorical standard regulation. A summary of the reports that categorical industries are
required to submit is provided in Table 9-1. A Control Authority may require additional reports
from all lUs discharging to the system, including categorical lUs. A control authority may reduce
sampling and reporting requirements for facilities that meet the definition of non-significant
categorical lUs or middle-tier categorical lUs established by the pretreatment streamlining rule.
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations
403.1
Purpose and Applicability
403.2
Objectives of General Pretreatment Regulations
403.3
Definitions
403.4
State or Local Law
The Federal General Pretreatment Regulations are not meant to affect any state or local
regulatory requirements as long as these requirements are at least as stringent as the
federal regulations.
403.5
National Pretreatment Standards: Prohibited Discharges
This section specifies general and specific prohibited discharge standards that Control
Authorities must incorporate into their pretreatment programs. The general prohibitions
specify that pollutants introduced into POTWs by a nondomestic source shall not pass
through the POTW or interfere with the operation or performance of the works. The
section provides that Control Authorities required to develop local pretreatment
programs and POTWs where interference and pass through are likely to recur develop
and enforce specific limitations (local limits, including Best Management Practices) to
implement the general prohibitions against interference, pass through, and sludge
contamination.
The specific prohibitions specify prevention of discharge of pollutants that cause any of
the following at the POTW:
• Fire or explosion hazard, including no discharge with a closed-cup flashpoint of less
than 60°C (140°F) using test methods in 40 CFR 261.21.
• Corrosive structural damage (no pH<5.0).
• Obstruction to the flow in the POTW.
• Interference.
• Fleat causing inhibition of biological activity and temperatures at the POTW
treatment plant to exceed 40°C (104°F).
• Petroleum oils, non-biodegradable cutting oils, or products of mineral oils in
amounts that will cause interference or pass through.
• Fume toxicity or reactivity.
• Trucked or hauled pollutants except at designated discharge points.
Chapter 9 - Page 184
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations
Additionally, lUs are provided with an affirmative defense (if specified conditions are
met) for actions brought against them for alleged violations of the general or specific
prohibitions contained in this section.
403.6
National Pretreatment Standards: Categorical Standards
This section discusses development and implementation of categorical pretreatment
standards including, but not limited to, compliance deadlines, concentrations and mass
limits, prohibition of dilution as a substitute treatment, and the Combined Wastestream
Formula (CWF) to determine discharge limitations.
403.7
Revision of Categorical Pretreatment Standards to Reflect POTW Removal of Pollutants
This section (referred to as the removal credits provision) provides the criteria and
procedures to be used by a POTW in revising the pollutant discharge limits specified in
categorical pretreatment standards to reflect removal of pollutants by the POTW.
403.8
Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development & Implementation by POTW
This section covers the requirements for pretreatment program development by a
Control Authority. Included in this section are criteria for determining which POTWs must
develop pretreatment programs, incorporation of approved programs and compliance
schedules into NPDES permits, deadlines for program approvals, and program and
funding requirements. 403.8(f) sets out the requirements for an approvable POTW
program. Specifically, it requires, among other things, that the Control Authority must
have sufficient legal authority to enforce the approved pretreatment program that must
include either individual industrial user control mechanisms such as a permit as well as,
in certain cases, general control mechanisms for groups of similar lUs. The section also
discusses that all Control Authorities with approved programs, or programs under
development, must develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with the
requirements of a pretreatment program (which includes annual inspection and sampling
requirements and the definition of SNC).
403.9
Control Authority Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise Pretreatment
Standards: Submission for Approval
This section discusses requirements and procedures for submission and review of Control
Authority pretreatment programs. Included in this section are discussions of conditional
program approval, approval authority action, and notification where submissions are
defective.
403.10
Development and Submission of NPDES State Pretreatment Programs
This section discusses requirements and procedures for submission and review of NPDES
state pretreatment programs. Included in this section are discussions of approvals and
deadlines for state programs, legal authority, program and funding requirements, and
contents of program submissions.
403.11
Approval Procedures for Control Authority Pretreatment Programs and Revision of
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Chapter 9 - Page 185
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations
This section provides the administrative procedures for the review and approval or denial
of Control Authority pretreatment program submissions and requests for removal credit
authority.
403.12
Reporting Requirements for POTWs and lUs
This section presents reporting requirements for Control Authorities and lUs. Reports
required by lUs include the following:
• Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR). Due to the Control Authority within 180 days of
the effective date of the categorical pretreatment standards (40 CFR 403.6). In
addition, new source BMR reporting requirements are discussed in this section.
• Compliance schedule progress reports. Due to the Control Authority within 14 days
of completion of compliance schedule milestones or due dates.
• 90-day compliance report. Due to the Control Authority within 90 days of the
compliance date of the categorical standards or 90 days after beginning discharge for
a new source.
• Periodic reports on continued compliance. Due to the Control Authority at least
semiannually, usually in June and December after the compliance date. The Control
Authority may waive monitoring requirements if specified conditions are met.
• Notices of potential problems including slug loadings. Due to the Control Authority
immediately upon identification of discharges, including slug loadings that could
cause problems to the POTW for both non-categorical and categorical lUs.
• Notice of changed discharge. Due to the Control Authority from categorical and non-
categorical users in advance of any significant change in volume or character of
pollutants discharged.
• Notice of violation and resampling. Notification due to the Control Authority within
24 hours of noting a violation; results of resampling due within 30 days.
• Notification of hazardous waste discharge. Notification to the POTW, EPA, and state
Hazardous Waste authorities of the hazardous wastes discharges to the POTW.
Reports required from Control Authorities include the following:
• Compliance schedule (for development of pretreatment programs) progress reports
• Annual POTW reports to the Approval Authority.
• Annual certification by Non-Significant Categorical lUs.
This section also discusses in detail the monitoring requirements for lUs and signatory
and recordkeeping requirements (including requirements for electronic documents) for
Control Authorities and lUs.
Chapter 9 - Page 186
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations
403.13
Variances from Categorical Pretreatment Standards for Fundamentally Different
Factors
This provision allows an industrial user, POTW or any interested person, to request a
variance for the establishment of limits either more or less stringent than that required
by a categorical pretreatment standard. The primary criterion required for approval of
this variance is that the factors relating to the industrial user's discharges be
fundamentally different from factors considered by EPA in establishing categorical
pretreatment standards for these discharges.
403.14
Confidentiality
This section covers confidentiality requirements and prohibitions for EPA, states, and
Control Authorities. Effluent data are available to the public without restriction.
403.15
Net/Gross Calculation
This provision provides for adjustment of categorical pretreatment standards to reflect
the presence of pollutants in the industrial user's intake water.
403.16
Upset Provision
This provision is consistent with the NPDES regulations and allows an upset of an
industry's pretreatment system (which meets the conditions of an upset as specified in
this provision) to be an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with
categorical pretreatment standards. The industrial user shall have the burden of proof
for such a defense.
403.17
Bypass
This provision requires lUs to operate their treatment systems at all times and includes
criteria for allowing a bypass to occur and notification procedures for both an anticipated
and unanticipated bypass.
403.18
Modification of Control Authority Pretreatment Programs
This provision specifies procedures and criteria for "minor" and "substantial"
modifications to approved Control Authority pretreatment programs and incorporation
of substantial modifications into the Control Authority.
403.19
Provisions of specific applicability to the Owatonna Waste Water Treatment Facility
This section provides specific regulatory requirements for the Owatonna Waste Water
Treatment Facility and its participating lUs to implement a project under the Project XLC
program in Steele County, Minnesota. This project includes legal authorities and
requirements that are different than the administrative requirements otherwise
specified in 40 CFR Part 403.
403.20
Pretreatment Program Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL
This section provides administrative procedures to allow any POTW with a final "Project
XL" agreement to implement a Pretreatment Program that includes legal authorities and
Chapter 9 - Page 187
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 9-1. Summary of the General Pretreatment Regulations
requirements that are different than the administrative requirements otherwise
specified in 40 CFR Part 403.
Appendix A
[Reserved]
Appendix B
[Reserved]
Appendix C
[Reserved]
Appendix D
Selected Industrial Subcategories Considered Dilute for Purposes of the Combined
Wastestream Formula (previously titled "Selected Industrial Subcategories Exempted
from Regulation Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the NRDC v. Costle Consent Decree"
The Appendix D published on January 21, 1981, provided a list of industrial subcategories
that had been exempted (pursuant to paragraph 8 of the NRDC vs. EPA Consent Decree)
from regulation by categorical pretreatment standards. Appendix D was revised on
October 9, 1986, to update the list of exempted industrial categories and to correct
previous errors by either adding or removing various subcategories or by changing the
names of some categories or subcategories. Each of the subcategories, as indicated by
the revised Appendix D title, contains wastestreams that are classified as dilute for
purposes of applying categorical pretreatment standards to other wastestreams and for
using the combined wastestream formula to adjust these standards.
Appendix E
Sampling Procedures
This Appendix provides a general description of composite and grab sampling
procedures.
Appendix F
[Reserved]
Appendix G
Pollutants Eligible for a Pollutant Credit
Table 9-2. Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Industrial Categories with Categorical
Effluent Guidelines Currently
Pretreatment Standards in Effect
Under Development8
N
Aluminum Forming (Part 467)
E
N
Battery Manufacturing (Part 461)
• Steam Electric Power
E
N
Builder's Paper and Board Mills (Part 431)
Generation
E
N
Carbon Black Manufacturing (Part 458)
E
N
Centralized Waste Treatment (Part 437)
• Shale Gas Extraction
N
Coil Coating (Part 465)
• Dental Amalgam
E
N
Copper Forming (Part 468)
N
Duck Operations (Part 412)
E
N
Electrical and Electronic Components (Part 469)
E
N
Electroplating (Part 413)
N
Fertilizer Manufacturing (Part 418)
N
Glass Manufacturing (Part 426)
N
Grain Mills Manufacturing (Part 406)
Chapter 9 - Page 188
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 9-2. Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Industrial Categories with Categorical
Effluent Guidelines Currently
Pretreatment Standards in Effect
Under Development8
N
Ink Formulating (Part 447)
E
N
Inorganic Chemicals (Part 415)
E
N
Iron and Steel Manufacturing (Part 420)
E
N
Leather Tanning and Finishing (Part 425)
E
N
Metal Finishing (Part 433)
E
N
Metal Molding and Casting (Part 464)
E
N
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (Part 471)
E
N
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (Part 421)
E
N
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (Part 414)
N
Paint Formulating (Part 446)
E
N
Paving and Roofing Materials (Part 443)
E
N
Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455)
E
N
Petroleum Refining (Part 419)
E
N
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (Part 439)
E
N
Porcelain Enameling (Part 466)
N
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430)
N
Rubber Manufacturing (Part 428)
E
N
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (Part 417)
E
N
Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423)
E
N
Timber Products Processing (Part 429)
E
N
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (Part 442)
Waste Combustors (Part 444)
E = Standards in effect for existing sources.
N = Standards in effect for new sources.
a From 2010 final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (October 2011).
B. PRETREATMENT COMPLIANCE
INSPECTIONS AND OTHER COMPLIANCE EVALAUTION ACTIVITIES
SCOPE OF PC IS AND AUDITS
The Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI), the pretreatment program audit, and the
program performance report (submitted at least annually by the Control Authority) are tools
EPA and state officials use to assess the Control Authority's pretreatment program.
EPA uses the PCI to evaluate Control Authority compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities. The inspector also determines whether any changes have been made to the Control
Authority program since the last PCI, audit, performance report (i.e., annual report), or Control
Authority modification request for approval. Further, the inspector collects information on
Control Authority program implementation for further evaluation by compliance personnel.
The inspector may conduct the PCI in conjunction with other NPDES inspections to conserve
travel resources and allow integration of information on a POTW's operations. PCIs can be
Chapter 9 - Page 189
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
conducted along with Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs), Compliance Sampling
Inspections (CSIs), Performance Audit Inspections (PAIs), Diagnostic Inspections (DIs), and other
non-routine inspections, such as Toxics Sampling Inspections, and Compliance Biomonitoring
Inspections. The inspector may combine a PCI with a site visit regarding sludge compliance as
discussed in Chapter 10.
Note that the POTW personnel involved in a CSI may be different from the ones involved in a
PCI. Also, PCIs and audits rely heavily on file and record reviews to evaluate the Control
Authority's pretreatment program. These records may have little bearing on the sampling
inspection of the treatment facility. This distinction of a PCI to a CSI should be addressed during
planning for the inspection.
Audits provide a comprehensive review of the Control Authority pretreatment program. The
audit addresses all the items covered in a PCI, but in greater detail. Consequently, the audit is
more resource intensive than the PCI. Additionally, the pretreatment audit is generally
considered to be a program function and it is not the focus of this Chapter. More information
about how to conduct pretreatment compliance audits is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/final_pca_checklist_and_instructions_%20feb2010.pdf.
In general, there are three major components of a PCI:
• Pre-visit preparation for the PCI:
- Coordination with the EPA Regional or State Pretreatment Coordinator.
- Review of background information: approved program documentation, Control
Authority annual reports (if available), NPDES permit/NPDES permit fact sheet,
NPDES permit compliance status, previous inspection reports, and program
modification requests from the Control Authority.
- Notification of Control Authority (if appropriate).
• On-site:
- Entry (presenting credentials)
- Opening conference with Control Authority officials
- Review of pretreatment files
- IU site visits (as appropriate)
- Interview of officials using PCI or audit checklist
- Tour of POTW (optional)
- Closing conference
• Follow-up:
- Preparation of report
- Data entry into ICIS-NPDES
- Reportable Noncompliance/Significant Noncompliance (RNC/SNC) determination
- Follow-up letter to the Control Authority
Chapter 9 - Page 190
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Enforcement action (when necessary)
- NPDES permit or program modifications (when necessary)
EPA's Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring
Strategy (CMS) (EPA, 2014) describes the off-site desk audit as a compliance monitoring activity
that regions and states can use, under certain circumstances, to make a compliance
determination. In order for the off-site desk audit to count toward CMS implementation, the
region or state must report the activity to ICIS-NPDES and the desk audit must be conducted by
an authorized inspector or other credible regulator with sufficient knowledge, training or
experience to assess compliance. The off-site desk audit may include, but is not limited to, the
following activities:
- Review of POTW permit, reports and records, including annual pretreatment reports
and annual biosolids reports for years covering the period since the last PCI or audit.
- Review of agency-gathered testing, sampling and ambient monitoring data.
- Evaluation of responses to CWA section 308 information requests, such as IU self-
monitoring reports.
- Consideration of other information to identify any unpermitted lUs or mis-
categorized lUs.
- Consideration of the POTW's sewer use ordinance and enforcement response policy.
- Review of compliance deliverables submitted pursuant to permits or enforcement
actions.
- Analysis of aerial or satellite images.
If a PCI is conducted with an unannounced NPDES inspection, it also may be unannounced, but
the Control Authority officials should be notified of the PCI upon arrival of the inspection team.
At many POTWs, personnel responsible for implementing the pretreatment program may not
be the same as those operating the treatment plant.
The protocol involved in the on-site portion of the inspection is comparable to that of other
NPDES inspections. The Pretreatment Program PCI typically includes site visits of industrial
facilities discharging to the POTW. The inspector should select lUs for site visits as needed to
evaluate the Control Authority's procedures for properly categorizing, monitoring and
inspecting lUs. For more detailed information on conducting PCIs, refer to EPA's Guidance for
Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (EPA, 1991a).
PCI CHECKLIST COMPONENTS AND INSPECTION REPORT
EPA developed the PCI checklist to assist NPDES inspectors in conducting and documenting the
PCI. However, it should be noted that the checklist in the 1991 PCI guidance has not been
updated to evaluate changes in the regulations as a result of the 2007 Pretreatment
Streamlining Rule. EPA pretreatment inspectors may find EPA's Control Authority Pretreatment
Audit Checklist and Instructions (EPA, 2010) helpful for conducting pretreatment inspections.
See the next section for a description of this checklist.
Chapter 9 - Page 191
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
In addition to the completed checklist, the inspector may include other materials collected
during the PCI in the final report as appendices, such as:
• Example of Control Authority control mechanism or enforcement actions
• Names of lUs that were not sampled or inspected in the past year
• Control Authority's Enforcement Response Plan
• Annual list of lUs in significant noncompliance
See the EPA's Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (EPA, 1991a) for
the PCI checklist. The manual goes through each checklist section individually and explains the
intent of the questions. As noted earlier, the manual provides more detailed information
concerning the procedures for conducting the PCI.
PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST COMPONENTS
The audit checklist has been developed to assist with a detailed review of a POTW
pretreatment program, including pretreatment program modification, legal authority, industrial
user characterization, control mechanism evaluation, application of pretreatment standards
and requirements, compliance monitoring, enforcement, data management/public
participation, resources, and environmental effectiveness/pollution prevention. The audit
checklist is part of the Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions (EPA,
2010). The manual provides specific guidance on conducting an audit and using the checklist.
The audit checklist is divided into the following sections:
• Section I: Data Review
• Section II: File Evaluation
• Section III: Observations and Concerns
• Attachment A: Pretreatment Program Status Update
• Attachment B: Pretreatment Program Profile
• Attachment C: Legal Authority Review Checklist
• Industrial User Site Visit Data Sheet
• WENDB Data Entry Worksheet;
• Pretreatment Compliance Audit Required ICIS Data Elements Worksheet
• RNC Worksheet.
Inspectors should note that the 2010 audit checklist includes the WEN database entry
worksheet; however, the WEN database is no longer utilized. Inspectors should now enter audit
information into the ICIS-NPDES database and may use the ICIS-NPDES Data Entry Worksheet to
do so.
The audit checklist collects more detailed information than the PCI checklist and, as with the
completed PCI checklist, also may be augmented by additional audit data:
• NPDES pretreatment permit conditions.
Chapter 9 - Page 192
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Control Authority enforcement documents with pretreatment requirements (i.e.,
administrative order, consent decree).
• Locally developed discharge limitations as included in the approved program (or any
limits that have been changed by the Control Authority).
• Copy of sewer use ordinance if different from that in the approved program.
• Control Authority sampling and inspection schedule for regulated lUs.
• List of lUs not sampled or inspected in the past year.
• Control Authority chain-of-custody form.
• List of noncompliant lUs and history of enforcement actions taken.
• Annual list of lUs in significant noncompliance.
_ _______
EPA's Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (September 1991)
contains a list of reference materials (publications and memoranda) available from EPA or the
Pretreatment Coordinator in your region. These documents and additional guidance manuals
developed to assist EPA Regional Offices, states, POTWs, and lUs with implementation of the
General Pretreatment Program are available on EPA's NPDES Pretreatment Publications
website (https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-pretreatment-
program#overviewhttps://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pubs.cfm?program_id=3).
Checklists for conducting pretreatment compliance inspections and audits are provided in EPA's
Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (EPA, 1991a) and Control
Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions (EPA, 2010). It should be noted that
these checklists have not been updated to evaluate changes in the regulations as a result of the
2007 Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. Each checklist provides a list of questions that should be
considered during an audit or PCI. The inspector should contact the Regional or State
Pretreatment Coordinator before a PCI or an audit is done.
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on the NPDES pretreatment
program.
Memoranda
Determining Industrial User Significant Noncompliance (January 17, 1992).
Determining Industrial User Compliance Using Split Samples (January 21, 1992).
Use of Grab Samples to Detect Violations of Pretreatment Standards (October 1, 1992).
Using Split Samples to Determine Industrial User Noncompliance (April 12, 1993).
Information on the Misuse of Sodium Dimethyldithiocarbamate (June 2, 2000).
Chapter 9 - Page 193
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Regulatory Determination for the PreKote™ Surface Preparation Process (April 1, 2003).
Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations and Standards for the
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category—40 CFR Part 414
(April 2005).
New Source Dates for Direct and Indirect Dischargers (September 28, 2006).
Oversight of SlUs Discharging to POTWs without Approved Pretreatment Programs (May 18,
2007).
Applicability of Effluent Guidelines and Categorical Pretreatment Standards to Biodiesel
Manufacturing (August 11, 2008).
Best Practices for NPDES Permit Writers and Pretreatment Coordinators to Address Toxic and
Hazardous Chemical Discharges to POTWs (November 3, 2016)
EPA Guidance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment
Program Development. EPA 833/B-83-100.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1985). Guidance Manual for Implementing Production-
Based Pretreatment Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula. EPA 833-B-85-201.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991a). Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection. EPA300/R-92-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991b). Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs: Guidance
Manual. 21 W-4001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Guidance to Protect POTW Workers from Fume
Toxic and Reactive Gasses and Vapors. EPA 812-B-92-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a). Industrial User Inspection and Sampling Manual
for POTWs. EPA 831-B-94-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994b). Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs
Guidance Manual. EPA 833-94-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Guidance Manual for Control of Wastes Hauled
to Publicly Owned Treatment Works. EPA 833-B-98-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004a). Local Limits Development Guidance. EPA 833-R-
04-002A.
Chapter 9 - Page 194
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004b). Mercury Pollutant Minimization Program
Guidance. Region 5, NPDES Programs Branch.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007a). EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance. EPA 833-B-
06-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b). Checklist - Pretreatment Program Legal
Authority Reviews.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist
and Instructions. EPA 833-B-10-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011a). Introduction to the National Pretreatment
Program. EPA 833-B-11-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011b). Procuring Analytical Services: Guidance for
Industrial Pretreatment Programs. EPA 833-B-11-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual.
833-R-12-001A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/npdescms.pdf
Chapter 9 - Page 195
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 10 -
SEWAGE SLUDGE (BIOSOLIDS)
Contents
A. Review of the Sewage Sludge Regulations (Biosolids) 198
Land Application Requirements (40 CFR Part 503, Subpart B) 200
Surface Disposal Requirements (40 CFR Part 503, Subpart C) 203
Incineration Requirements (Subpart E) 204
B. Sludge (Biosolids) Inspection Procedures 209
Scope of Inspection Activities 209
Inspection Preparation 210
Records Review 211
Facility Site Review 214
Sampling and Laboratory Quality Assurance (QA) 216
C. References 229
List of Tables
Table 10-1. Records Relevant for Sludge Operations 217
Table 10-2. Operating Records for Specific Unit Processes 218
Table 10-3. Sludge Sampling Points 220
Table 10-4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class A Pathogen Reduction Alternatives3 223
Table 10-5. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class B Pathogen Reduction Alternatives3 225
Table 10-6. Recordkeeping Requirements for Vector Attraction Reduction Sludge Processing
Options 225
Table 10-7. Sludge Handling Process Evaluation 226
Table 10-8. Pollutants Monitored for Land Application, Surface Disposal, and Incineration 229
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 10-1. Sludge Quality Requirements for Land Application Uses 206
Exhibit 10-2. Land Applied Sludge Requirements Based on Level of Treatment Achieved 207
Exhibit 10-3. Sludge Quality Requirements for Surface Disposal 208
Chapter 10 - Page 196
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Associated Appendices
P. Sludge Inspection Checklists
Related Websites
Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) home page: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Office of Science and Technology (OST) home page: http://www.epa.gov/ost
Chapter 10 - Page 197
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. REVIEW OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE REGULATIONS
(BIOSOLIDS)
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) mandated the development of a federal sludge
management program. On February 19, 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated technical standards for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge (see Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Volume 58 Federal Register (FR) 9248). These
regulations contain technical standards for three sewage sludge use or disposal practices:
• Land Application (Subpart B)
• Surface Disposal (Subpart C)
• Incineration (Subpart E)
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 also include pathogen and alternative vector attraction
reduction requirements for sewage sludge applied to the land or placed on a surface disposal
site (Subpart D).
The federal and state sludge management programs currently regulate the final use and
disposal of sewage sludge, the residual generated from the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works. Although the regulations refer to the residual generated from the treatment
of domestic sewage as sewage sludge, the term "biosolids" is the current term in general use
for those sewage sludges that have been treated and conditioned through biological, chemical,
and/or physical processes for beneficial reuse as a soil amendment for growing plants and
trees.
In preparation for the issuance of the final technical standards, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations were revised to include sludge use or disposal
requirements. EPA considers the sludge regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 as the minimum
requirements applicable to and enforceable against any facility engaged in a regulated sludge
use or disposal practice, regardless of whether that facility's NPDES permit contains sludge use
or disposal conditions. EPA has the authority to issue a notice of violation or take other
appropriate enforcement actions against facilities that do not comply with 40 CFR Part 503
regulations.
Facilities that are subject to NPDES permit requirements for aqueous discharges to surface
waters, such as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), are also subject to 40 CFR Part 503
regulations as generators and preparers of sewage sludge. Additionally, facilities that may not
have previously been permitted under the NPDES program and are subject to 40 CFR Part 503
regulations will be required to apply for an NPDES permit. Regulated facilities include:
Chapter 10 - Page 198
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Facilities designated by the permitting authority as treatment works treating domestic
sewage.6
• Industrial facilities that separately treat domestic sewage and generate biosolids
regulated by 40 CFR Part 503.
• All surface disposal site owners/operators.
• Septage haulers who land apply septage.
• All biosolids incinerator owners/operators.
• Facilities changing the quality of biosolids regulated by 40 CFR Part 503.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 only apply to use and disposal of sewage sludge (including
domestic septage), which replaces only a portion of the original 1979 regulations on land
application and surface disposal of sludge in 40 CFR Part 257. The land application of industrial
sludge continues to be regulated by 40 CFR Part 257. However, disposal of sewage sludge in
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) is regulated in 40 CFR Part 258 and the operations
and air emissions of sewage sludge incinerators is regulated by the Clean Air Act (CAA) under 40
CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 129.
In general, the regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 apply the following types of requirements to the
three practices for sewage sludge use or disposal:
• Pollutant limits—9 pollutants under land application (40 CFR 503.13), 3 pollutants under
surface disposal (40 CFR 503.23), and 7 pollutants under incineration (40 CFR 503.43).
• Pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements.
• Nitrogen application rate requirements.
• Management practices for siting and operation of sludge use or disposal activities.
• Minimum monitoring requirements.
• Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
A brief explanation of the requirements that apply to each sewage sludge use or disposal
practice is provided below. Pathogen and alternative vector attraction reduction requirements
in Subpart D are included in the descriptions for land application (Subpart B) and surface
disposal (Subpart C) of sewage sludge and are not described separately in this document.
6 Treatment works is either a federally owned, publicly owned, or privately owned device or system used to treat
(including recycle and reclaim) either domestic sewage or a combination of domestic sewage and industrial waste
of a liquid nature. Domestic sewage is waste and wastewater from humans or household operations that is
discharged to or otherwise enters a treatment works. Domestic septage is either liquid or solid material removed
from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet, Type III marine sanitation device, or similar treatment works that
receives only domestic sewage (and does not receive either commercial wastewater or industrial wastewater and
does not include grease removed from a grease trap at a restaurant). Note the Part 503 regulations also include
simplified requirements for the land application of domestic septage.
Chapter 10 - Page 199
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
LAND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR PART 503, SUBPART B)
Land application consists of the spreading, spraying, injection, or incorporation of biosolids,
including material derived from sewage sludge (e.g., compost, sewage sludge pellets), onto or
below the surface of the land to take advantage of the soil-enhancing qualities of the sewage
sludge.
General
The general requirements in 40 CFR Part 503, Subpart B prohibit the land application of sewage
sludge to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site if the sludge does
not meet the pollutant limits or ceiling concentrations established in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1). The
person who prepares bulk sewage sludge for land application is responsible for providing the
applicator of the sewage sludge a written notification of the concentration of total nitrogen (as
N, on a dry weight basis) in the bulk sewage sludge. The preparer of the sewage sludge is
responsible for obtaining this information and disseminating this information to respective
owners or lease holders to comply with 40 CFR 503.7 regulations.
For sewage sludge that is applied to land in a state other than the state in which the bulk
sewage sludge is prepared, the applicator will also provide written notice, prior to the initial
application, to the permitting authority for the state in which the bulk sewage sludge is
proposed to be applied. The notice shall include:
• The location, by either street address or latitude and longitude, of each land application
site.
• The approximate time period bulk sewage sludge will be applied to the site.
• The name, address, telephone number, and NPDES permit number (if appropriate) for
the person who prepares the bulk sewage sludge.
• The name, address, telephone number, and NPDES permit number (if appropriate) for
the person who will apply the bulk sewage sludge.
Pollutant Limits
The regulations establish four types of limits for nine pollutants. Exhibit 10-1 at the end of this
section illustrates which limits apply, based on the final sludge use; conversely, Exhibit 10-2
illustrates which requirements apply, based on the level of treatment achieved.
• Ceiling Concentration Limits—Maximum limits as milligram of pollutant per kilogram of
sludge on a dry weight basis for bulk sewage sludge or sewage sludge sold or given away
in a bag or other container that can be land applied (listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.13).
• Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rates (CPLRs)—Total amount of pollutant (kilograms) in
sludge that does not meet pollutant concentration limits that can be applied to a
hectare of agricultural land, forest, public contact site, or reclamation site. When this
loading rate is reached, no additional sludge can be applied to the site. CPLRs are listed
in Table 2 of 40 CFR 503.13.
Chapter 10 - Page 200
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Pollutant Concentration Limits—Monthly average concentration of pollutant as
milligram per kilogram of sludge on a dry weight basis (listed in Table 3 of 40 CFR
503.13). They apply to sewage sludge sold or given away in a bag or other container that
can be applied to land and as an alternative limit to CPLRs for bulk sewage sludge.
• Annual Pollutant Loading Rates—The amount of pollutant (kilograms) in a bagged
product that can be applied in a 365-day period on an area (hectare) of land, calculated
as the product of the concentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge (kilograms of
pollutant per kilograms of sludge) and the annual whole sludge application rate for the
sewage sludge (kilograms sludge per year). The loading rates (listed in Table 4 of 40 CFR
503.13) are alternative limits to pollutant concentration limits for sewage sludge sold or
given away in a bag or other container on a dry weight basis that can be applied each
year.
Management Practices
The regulations at 40 CFR 503.14 lists five management practices that supplement the pollutant
limits and provide additional protection to endangered species and their habitats, surface
water, wetlands, groundwater, and human exposure to the sludge. Four of these practices are
applicable to the land application of bulk sludge; one practice is applicable to the labeling or
reporting of the bag or other container in which sewage sludge is sold or given away for land
application.
Operational Standards: Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction Requirements
Prior to land application, sludge must meet both pathogen reduction (i.e., reduction of disease-
causing organisms) and vector attraction reduction (i.e., reduction of rodents, flies, mosquitoes,
or other organisms capable of transporting infectious agents, ultimately to humans)
requirements.
The 1993 40 CFR Part 503 regulations (58 FR 9387) retained substantially the same pathogen
reduction requirements as the original 1979 40 CFR Part 257 (44 FR 53460) requirements for
land applied sludge. Land-applied sludge must meet one of two categories of pathogen
reduction requirements:
• Class A requirements (40 CFR 503.32(a)) must be met when applying bulk sewage sludge
to a lawn or home garden or when sewage sludge is sold or given away in a bag or other
container to be applied to land. Class A requirements result in a pathogen reduction of
the sludge to at or below the detection limits of the method. Class A sewage sludge may
be used without site restrictions or limiting public access. Six alternative pathogen
reduction approaches are available for achieving Class A sludge in Subpart D.
• Class B requirements (40 CFR 503.32(b)) significantly reduce (but do not eliminate) the
pathogens in the sludge and require a waiting period before the land on which the
sludge was applied may be used for certain activities. Site restrictions limit the
application of Class B sewage sludge to agricultural land, forest, public contact site, or a
reclamation site. To meet pathogen reduction requirements, land-applied domestic
septage must meet site restriction requirements in 40 CFR 503.32(b)(5) or meet pH
Chapter 10 - Page 201
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
requirements at 40 CFR 503.32(c)(2) and a subset of the site restriction requirements
(40 CFR 503.32(b)(5)(i)-503.32(b)(5)(iv)). Three pathogen reduction alternatives (with
specific site restrictions for use of the treated sludge) are provided for achieving Class B
sludge in Subpart D.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 also require compliance with one of eight vector attraction
reduction treatment alternatives if the sludge will be sold or given away in a bag or other
container (40 CFR 503.33(a)(3)). Bulk sewage sludge applied to lawns or home gardens must
also meet one of eight vector attraction reduction treatment alternatives (40 CFR 503.33(a)(2)).
Bulk sewage sludge applied elsewhere must meet one of ten treatment alternatives (40 CFR
503.33(a)(1)).
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 requires a minimum monitoring frequency for pollutants and
pathogen and vector reduction parameters based on the annual amount of sewage sludge
generated by a facility (as shown in Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.16). As with other NPDES provisions,
the permitting authority may reduce monitoring frequencies based upon consistent
demonstrated performance for at least two years. Land application of domestic septage
requires monitoring for pathogen and vector attraction reduction parameters to ensure
compliance with those requirements.
The recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR Part 503 differ depending on the type of pollutant
limits applied. Recordkeeping requirements, including certification statements specified in 40
CFR Part 503, are imposed on generators/preparers of sewage sludge and on appliers of
domestic septage. The regulations require the facility to retain the specific information for
5 years, except that some information on applicable cumulative pollutant loading rates must be
retained by the facility indefinitely.
While all facilities must maintain records, only a subset must report under the regulations at 40
CFR Part 503. Facilities should verify reporting requirements with the permitting authority.
Those facilities that must report at least once per year are listed below.
• Class I sludge management facilities7
• POTWs with a design capacity equal to or greater than 1 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
• POTWs serving a population of 10,000 or more
7 Class I sludge management facility is any publicly owned treatment works (POTW), as defined in 40 CFR 501.2,
required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR 403.8(a) (including any POTW located in a state
that has elected to assume local program responsibilities pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e)) and any treatment works
treating domestic sewage, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, classified as a Class I sludge management facility by the EPA
Regional Administrator, or, in the case of approved State programs, the Regional Administrator in conjunction with
the State Director, because of the potential for its sewage sludge use or disposal practice to affect public health
and the environment adversely.
Chapter 10 - Page 202
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SURFACE DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (40 CFR PART 503, SUBPART C)
A surface disposal site is an area of land that contains one or more active sewage sludge units
(i.e., land on which only sewage sludge is placed for final disposal). This does not include land
on which sewage sludge is either stored or treated. Surface Disposal includes monofills (sewage
sludge-only landfills), dedicated disposal surface application sites, piles or mounds,
impoundments, or lagoons.
General
Subpart C requires that sewage sludge shall not be placed on an active sewage sludge unit
unless the pollutant limits in 40 CFR 503.23 are met. If an active unit is located within 60 meters
of a geologic fault with displacement in Holocene time, located in an unstable area, or located
in a wetland, the unit must be enclosed. The operator/owner must notify the permitting
authority 180 days prior to closing a unit. Prior owners are required to notify the subsequent
owner of the presence of sewage sludge.
Pollutant Limits
The surface disposal regulations at 40 CFR 503.23 control three pollutants. Limits apply to
sewage placed at a surface disposal site that does not have a liner and leachate collection
system. There are no pollutant limits on sewage sludge placed in sewage sludge units equipped
with a liner and leachate collection system. The distance between the active sewage sludge unit
and the site property line/boundary determine the specific pollutant limits that apply; the
closer to the boundary, the more stringent the limits (see Table 10-3). An owner/operator can
request site-specific pollutant limits; the permitting authority establishes these limits through a
permit.
Management Practices
The regulations at 40 CFR 503.24 establish a total of 14 management practice requirements.
Many are one-time surface disposal site location restrictions. Others address operational
activities (e.g., liner, leachate and runoff collection systems, methane gas monitoring) and post-
closure activities.
Operational Standards
Prior to surface disposal, sludge must meet both pathogen reduction and vector attraction
reduction requirements. Sludge that is placed at a surface disposal site must meet one of the
Class A or Class B pathogen reduction alternatives, unless the sewage sludge is covered daily
with soil or other material. The inspector should note, however, that the site restrictions
included in the Class B pathogen reduction alternatives only apply to land applied sewage
sludge, not to surface disposal. In addition to pathogen reduction, surface disposed sludge must
also meet one of eleven vector attraction reduction alternatives specified in 40 CFR Part 503,
Subpart D. Although domestic septage does not have pathogen reduction requirements, one of
four vector attraction reduction requirements must be met prior to placing it on an active
sewage sludge unit.
Chapter 10 - Page 203
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 require a minimum monitoring frequency for pollutants and
pathogen and vector reduction parameters based on the annual amount of sewage sludge
disposed by a facility (as shown in Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.26). Like land application requirements
for monitoring, the permitting authority may reduce monitoring frequencies based upon
consistent demonstrated performance for at least two years. Surface disposal of domestic
septage requires monitoring for vector attraction reduction parameters to ensure compliance
with those requirements.
Recordkeeping requirements (40 CFR 503.26 to 503.28) include certification statements
specified for the sludge generator or final preparer and/or the owner/operator of the surface
disposal site. The facility must maintain all records for 5 years. While all facilities must maintain
records, only a subset must report under the sewage sludge regulations. Facilities should verify
reporting requirements with the permitting authority. Those facilities that must report at least
once per year are listed below.
• Class I sludge management facilities
• POTWs with a design capacity equal to or greater than 1 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
• POTWs serving a population of 10,000 or more
INCINERATION REQUIREMENTS (SUBPART E)
Incineration of sewage sludge is the firing of sludge at high temperatures in an enclosed device.
General
Sewage sludge incineration must be in compliance with the requirements in this subpart.
Pollutant Limits
The sewage sludge regulations impose pollutant limits on seven pollutants in the exit gas from a
sewage sludge incinerator stack. Beryllium and mercury must comply with the national
emissions standards in subparts C and E of 40 CFR Part 61. Limits on the five remaining metals
are calculated by the permitting authority based on-site-specific factors using the equations
specified in 40 CFR 503.43. Lead limits factor in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
lead. Limits for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel are based on chemical-specific risk-
specific concentrations. Limits for the remaining two pollutants (mercury and beryllium) are
derived from air emission standards promulgated under 40 CFR Part 61. These limits appear in
the permit issued to the owner/operator of the sewage sludge incinerator.
Management Practices
The seven management practices in 40 CFR 503.45 ensure that certain detection and
measurement instruments are correctly installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained; that
incinerator maximum combustion temperature and air pollution control equipment operating
standards are established; and that endangered species and their habitats are protected. The
permitting authority is required to include specific management practice requirements based
on-site-specific factors and these should appear in the incinerator's permit.
Chapter 10 - Page 204
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Operational Standards
The sewage sludge regulations establish an average monthly standard on the total
hydrocarbons (THC) or carbon monoxide (CO) concentration in the exit gases (i.e., stack gas) of
an incinerator to protect from excessive emissions of organic pollutants. The owner/operator
must correct the measured concentrations to account for variations in moisture and oxygen
content in the stack gas. The monthly standards must be normalized to 0 percent moisture and
7 percent oxygen in the stack gas. Monthly average concentrations of 100 parts per million
(ppm) for TCH or CO must be met.
Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The regulations at 40 CFR 503.47 and 503.48(a) impose monitoring requirements on the
incinerator owner/operator. Sections 503.46 to 503.48 of the sludge regulations require
monitoring of (a) sewage sludge for pollutant (i.e., seven metals) concentrations; (b) incinerator
stack exit gases for total hydrocarbon or, alternatively, carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen
concentrations and moisture content; and (c) incinerator combustion temperatures and air
pollution control equipment operating parameters. Monitoring requirements to demonstrate
compliance with Part 61 beryllium and mercury standards are also imposed on
owners/operators of sewage sludge incinerators (40 CFR 503.47(d)-(e)).
Records required to be maintained by owners/operators of incinerators are specified both in 40
CFR 503.47 and site-specific conditions in the NPDES or sludge permit. Owners/operators must
keep records for a minimum of five years and include information on sludge pollutant limits,
management practices, and monitoring requirements.
While all facilities must maintain records, only a subset must report under the sewage sludge
regulations. Facilities should verify reporting requirements with the permitting authority. Those
facilities that must report at least once per year are listed below.
• Class I sludge management facilities
• POTWs with a design capacity equal to or greater than 1 million gallons per day (MGD)
• POTWs serving a population of 10,000 or more
Chapter 10 - Page 205
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollutant Limits
For Use or
Disposal
Practice
Pathogen
Reduction
Alternatives
Vector
Attraction
Reduction
Options
LAND APPLICATION
"Bulk
biosolids
applied to
- Lamn or
home garden
Class A
Aiy of vector
options 1-8
Ce lllig Coiee itiatloi
Limits -
Tabte iofttJCFRsro.13
Pollitait
Maxlriim 1
(fng^gf)
Areeik;
Cadnlim
Copper
Lead
Uerciiy
Uot/bdenm
NKfcel
Seieilim
Zlic
TS
m
cm
840
ST
TS
tm
im
tsui
RolH1aitCoic« iHaOoi
LlTlIt -
TabfcSctfKICFR 503.13
Pollitait
Auerage I
#9*90
Anseifc
Catfnlim
Copper
Lead
Uerciiy
Nlciel
SefeiHm
Zlic
Uot.t-Jinm
i1 I
39
16HI
an
1T
ra
im
1MB
"Sell or give
away in bag
or other
container
Class A
Aiy of vector
options 1-8
Celllig coice itiatloi
limit li Tabte 1 axxie
PollrBitCoice itraBoi Lin It la
Tasle 3 Aboue OR Amal
Pollitait LcaJliq Ratj-
TaCfe ioftOCFRSTO.IS |
APLR ogfflaf 1
PolHtait
365 cB^pe rlocj) 1
Anseilc
2D I
CactnUm
13
Copper
TS
Lead
15
Me roi ly
~35
Ntetel
21
9e fe 1 IIITl
511
Zlic
140
Bulk biosolids
applied to
Class A or B
/Tiy of vector
options 1-10
- .Agricultural land, including
pasture
- Forest land
- Public contact site
- Reclamation site
Celllig coice mafloi
imttr li Table 1 attit
Poiutaitcoiceitratioi Limits [
li Table 3Uboue OR
Cinn&tbi PolUteitLcadlig
Rates-Ta>le2of
40CFR 603.13 I
CPLR 1
Polllt3it
Arseifc
i1
CactnUm
39
Copper
ism
Lead
xc
Mereiry
17
Nfctei
an
Senium
im
zuc
2SEE
^Exceptional Quality (EQ) material. General requirements, management
practices, site controls, and harvesting restrictions do not apply.
Exhibit 10-1. Sludge Quality Requirements for Land Application Uses
Chapter 10 - Page 206
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SLUDGE TYPE
Exceptional Quality (EQ)
1) Meets all pollutant concentration limits (Table 2-1, p. 29)
2) Meets any of the Class A alternatives (T able 2-5, p. 37)
3) Meets any of V.A.R. Options 1-8 (Table 2-6, p. 37)
RESULTING REQUIREMENTS
Unre gulate d for U s e
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Rep orting Re quirements
Pollutant Concentration (PC)
1) Meets all pollutant concentration limits (Table 2-1, p. 29)
2) Meets any of the Class B alternatives (Table 2-5, p, 37)
3) Meets any of V.A.R. Options 1-10 (T able 2-6, p. 37)
OR
1) Meets all pollutant concentration limits (Table 2-1, p. 29)
2) Meets any of the Class A alternatives (T able 2-5, p. 37)
3) Meets V.A.R. Option9 or 10 (Table 2-6, p. 37)
Site Restrictions (Fig. 2-4, p. 38)
Management Practices (Fig. 2-9, p. 45)
General Requirements (Fig. 2-8, p. 44)
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
Management Practices (Fig. 2-9, p. 45)
General Requirements (Fig. 2-8, p. 44)
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate (CPLR)
1) Meets ceiling concentration limits (Table 2-1, p. 29)
2) Meets any Class A or Class B alternative (Table 2-5, p. 37)
3) Meets any of V.A.R. Options 1-10 (Table 2-6, p. 37)
Site Restrictions (Fig. 2-4, p. 38)
Management Practices (Fig. 2-9, p. 45)
General Requirements (Fig. 2-8, p. 44)
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Rep orting Re quirements
CPLR Loading Rate Limits
(Table 2-1, p. 29)
Annual Pollutant Loading Rate (AFLR)
(For solids sold or given away)
1) Bjleets ceiling concentration limits (Table 2-1, p. 29)
2) Meets any of the Class A alternatives (T able 2-5, p. 37)
3) Meets any of V.A.R. Options 1-8 (T able 2-6, p. 37)
Site Restrictions (Fig. 2-4, p. 38)
Management Practices (Fig. 2-9, p. 45)
General Requirements (Fig. 2-8, p. 44)
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
APLR Loading Rate Limits
gable 2-1, p. 29)
Note: Tables and pages numbers reference above are from EPA's A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503
Biosolids Rule, September 1994
Exhibit 10-2. Land Applied Sludge Requirements Based on Level of Treatment Achieved
Chapter 10 - Page 207
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Unit Boundary
to Property Line
Pollutant Concentrations"
SURFACE DISPOSAL
Distance in
Meters
Arsenic
(mgfcg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Nickel
(mgfcg)
Unlined sewage
Class A or B or
Any of vector
0 to < 25
25 to < 50
50 to < 75
75 to < 100
30
34
39
48
200
220
260
300
210
240
270
320
sludge unit
daily cover
options 1-11
100 to < 125
53
360
390
125 to < 150
62
450
420
150 and greatei
73
600
420
Sewage sludge
unit with liner/
Class A or B or
Any of vector
No pollutant limits
leach ate
w
daily cover
F
options 1-11
F
collection
* Site-specific limits may he appru ved by the permitting authority, if requested.
Exhibit 10-3. Sludge Quality Requirements for Surface Disposal
Chapter 10 - Page 208
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B. SLUDGE (BIOSOLIDS) INSPECTION PROCEDURES
SCOPE OF INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
Inspectors should verify compliance with the following general activities:
• Sludge monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
• Sludge treatment operations and maintenance
• Sludge sampling and laboratory Quality Assurance (QA)
EPA intends for the evaluation of sludge management activities to be incorporated into the
existing NPDES inspection structure so that inspection resources can be used most efficiently.
The inspector can identify and investigate problems that might contribute to noncompliance
with sludge requirements during any inspection site visit. The Pretreatment Compliance
Inspection (PCI), the Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI), the Compliance Sampling
Inspection (CSI), and the Performance Audit Inspection (PAI) are the most likely vehicles for
evaluating compliance with sludge requirements. Examples of how the NPDES inspector may
use existing NPDES inspections when evaluating sludge requirements are presented below.
• PCI —During a PCI, the inspector evaluates a POTW's compliance with its pretreatment
program, which includes consideration of whether any pollutants from non-domestic
sources are passing through the treatment processes and accumulating in the sludge.
• CEI—The inspector has historically looked at sludge treatment as part of the CEI because
of its effect on wastewater treatment. Evaluation of sludge treatment during a CEI
should be expanded to include a review of sludge monitoring, reporting, and record-
keeping, and a more comprehensive evaluation of the Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) of sludge treatment processes, to evaluate compliance with sludge permit
requirements.
• CSI—The CSI is used if the inspector decides that sludge sampling is necessary to
determine compliance with applicable requirements.
• PAI—The PAI may evaluate compliance with sludge monitoring requirements, and
evaluate the permittee's sludge sampling and analytical procedures.
While NPDES inspectors are not required to conduct an in-depth compliance assessment of
sludge final use and disposal practices when such practices occur away from the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP), it can help ascertain the vector reduction compliance status at these
sites rather than at the WWTP. In situations where final use and disposal requirements have
been established in the facility's NPDES permit (e.g., management practices such as 10-meter
buffer zones between the sludge application site and surface waters) and the activity is off-site,
the inspector should verify compliance with those requirements through a records review at
the facility. As part of a sampling inspection, the inspector may need to sample the sludge to
determine compliance with pollutant limits.
Chapter 10 - Page 209
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPA intends to focus sludge inspection activities on those aspects of sludge management that
the inspector can easily evaluate during an existing NPDES compliance or pretreatment
inspection. Inspectors will rely on an evaluation of sludge treatment operations, the
observation of on-site sludge storage and disposal activities, and the review of sludge
monitoring and disposal records to identify actual and potential noncompliance with sludge
requirements. Inspectors should document compliance or noncompliance with sludge final use
or disposal requirements in accordance with standard NPDES compliance inspection
procedures. An optional inspection checklist is useful for documenting that all necessary
information has been collected. Sludge Inspection checklists are included in Appendix P of this
manual. These checklists are based on the checklists in EPA's Guidance for NPDES Compliance
Inspector: Evaluation of Sludge Treatment Processes (EPA, 1991a) and Guidance for NPDES
Compliance Inspector: Verifying Compliance with Sludge Requirements (EPA, 1991b), as
modified by EPA Region 8. The checklists should be used in conjunction with the checklist
questions found in the 1991 guidance manuals. However, sludge permits may contain
additional sludge permit conditions based on case-by-case considerations that are not included
on the checklist. The inspector should identify additional permit requirements and verify
compliance with these conditions as well. To accomplish this, it is recommended that the
inspector expand the checklist, if necessary, to ensure that it is specific to the NPDES permit
and the sludge final use or disposal activity. The inspector should complete the checklist and
should incorporate his/her findings and conclusions in the final inspection report prepared for
the facility.
The NPDES compliance inspector should also consult EPA's Guidance for NPDES Compliance
Inspector: Evaluation of Sludge Treatment Processes (EPA, 1991a) when preparing to conduct a
sludge inspection. This technical reference presents a detailed examination of sludge unit
processes and contains extensive technical checklists that summarize the most critical elements
of sludge thickening, stabilization, conditioning, dewatering, and disinfection. A technical
understanding of the proper design and operation of the sludge treatment processes is
essential for conducting thorough and informed sludge inspections.
INSPECTION PREPARATION
On preparing for the inspection, the inspector should:
• Review the NPDES permit (or the facility's sludge permit, if applicable). When reviewing
the NPDES permit file in preparation for the inspection, identify:
- Permit conditions applicable to sludge including treatment; general requirements;
management practices; and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
- Any additional requirements in the NPDES permit that may reflect state regulations.
Additionally, the NPDES permit may incorporate a separate state permit by
reference, in which case the state permit is also enforceable under the federal CWA.
• Review sludge self-monitoring data.
• Become familiar with the sludge disposal practices used.
Chapter 10 - Page 210
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Review appropriate federal regulations (i.e., 40 CFR Part 503, or 40 CFR Part 258 if
sludge is disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill, and any other applicable state or
local regulations).
• Review relevant guidance for background information and implementation procedures
(e.g., guidelines on calculating agronomic rate, EPA's Process Design Manuals (EPA,
1975; EPA, 1979; EPA, 1982; EPA, 1995a)).
• Verify that records kept by the permittee help in evaluation of compliance with sludge
requirements.
RECORDS REVIEW
The sewage sludge regulations contain recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The facility's
NPDES or sludge permit may have additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements. The
inspector should conduct an evaluation of the sludge records and reports found at the facility
to determine compliance with these recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The inspector
may find sampling records and files containing sludge feed rate measurements from several
different wastestreams. The inspector should use the procedures listed below for these routine
inspections. If suspected violations are uncovered during the routine evaluation, a more
intensive investigation should be conducted.
The inspector should evaluate compliance by asking the following questions:
• Does the facility have all required information available for review?
• Does the facility address all regulated pollutants and sludge use and disposal practices?
• Does the facility have all the current sludge information?
• Does the facility maintain sludge records for at least 5 years?
• Does the facility's information contained in the sludge records support the data
submitted to the permitting authority?
• Do the facility's records indicate areas needing further investigation?
The inspector should also identify whether violations of sludge-related permit requirements
(e.g., concentration limits and/or management practices) have been reported to the control
authority, as required by the permit. Finally, the inspector should verify that the permittee has
notified EPA of any changes to sludge use or disposal practices.
Evaluation Procedures
The inspector should first review the permit and fact sheet and list all sludge recordkeeping
requirements.
Table 10-1 is a list of records that may be relevant for sludge. This list is supplemented by Table
10-2, which describes records relevant to the operation of specific sludge treatment unit
processes. Throughout the inspection, compare the facility's operations with the permit
conditions to verify that required permit activities for sludge are correct, current, and
complete.
Chapter 10 - Page 211
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
An evaluation of sludge self-monitoring records and/or procedures involves the same elements
as an evaluation of their wastewater monitoring data; however, there are some special
considerations inherent in sludge sampling. In evaluating the permittee's records, inspectors
should look for documentation regarding:
• Regulated pollutants—As identified in the NPDES permit or applicable federal or state
regulations.
• Monitoring frequency—As identified in the NPDES permit or applicable federal or state
regulations. The inspector should note that 40 CFR Part 503 establishes minimum
monitoring frequencies based on the quantity of sewage sludge used or disposed of.
• Sample location—The appropriate sampling point is the final treatment process the
sludge goes through before leaving the treatment plant for use or disposal. For example,
if a composted sludge is land applied, the finish compost pile/distribution pile should be
sampled. If digested sludge is land applied, the sludge should be sampled as it is
transferred from the digester or dewatering to the truck prior to being hauled off-site.
Table 10-3 identifies sludge sampling points appropriate for the various types of treated
sludge.
• Sample types—Grabs or composites may be appropriate depending on the situation, but
it is important to note that a grab sample from a lagoon, drying bed, compost pile, or
truck must consist of numerous samples collected from various places in the lagoon,
bed, pile, or truck and must be combined to make a representative sample.
• Sample volume—If evaluating the sample collection process or taking samples, the
inspector must ensure that the container is not filled completely. Some space should be
left to allow for expansion of the sample due to gas production. Rapid cooling of the
sample will also reduce gas production.
• Sample containers—Sample containers are generally the same types as those used for
collection of wastewater samples.
• EPA sample identification methods—Same as for wastewater sampling.
• Preservation and holding times—The primary difference in sludge preservation is that
samples should not be chemically preserved in the field because the sludge matrix
makes it difficult to thoroughly mix the preservative into the sample. However, samples
should be iced.
• Chain-of-custody—Same as for wastewater sampling.
• Quality control—Same as for wastewater sampling.
• Analytical procedures used by lab—The analytical methods used for sludge are different
from those used for wastewater. Approved analytical methods are listed in 40 CFR 503.8
or 40 CFR Part 136, where 40 CFR Part 503 does not require a specific method. For
example, 40 CFR Part 503 requires that analyses for inorganic pollutants use the
procedures in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods
(EPA, 1980a). The inspector should note the information recorded regarding sample
Chapter 10 - Page 212
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
handling and analysis at the laboratory and verify that it is correct. If evaluating the
laboratory, the procedures are the same as those followed in a PAI. The inspector
should look at:
- Analytical procedures
- Laboratory services
- Instruments and equipment
¦ Calibration
¦ Maintenance
- Supplies
- Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
¦ Precision and accuracy of measurement process
¦ Data handling and reporting
¦ Records retention
¦ Personnel qualifications
• Analytical results—Verify that results documented in the files are consistent with those
reported.
The inspector should verify that reporting requirements are fulfilled according to the permit
and applicable regulations. The NPDES permit may or may not have specific reporting
requirements; however, the 40 CFR Part 503 sludge standards have specific reporting
requirements that apply regardless of whether they appear in the NPDES permit. The May 1989
revisions to the NPDES regulations (54 FR 18716) established standard permit conditions
regarding notification of change and at least annual reporting of sludge monitoring results. As
NPDES permits are reissued, they will contain, at a minimum, these standard conditions as well
as conditions specified in 40 CFR Part 503. Based on the applicable requirements, the inspector
should verify that:
• Reports contain all required information.
• Reports are submitted at the required frequency.
• Data are reported in the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or other approved form.
Inspectors should review unit operation records to verify compliance with pathogen and vector
attraction reduction requirements. Table 10-4, Table 10-5, and Table 10-6 list the records and
operating requirements for the 40 CFR Part 503, Class A pathogen reduction alternatives, the
Class B pathogen reduction alternatives, and the vector attraction reduction options,
respectively. Inspectors are not expected to review each monitoring record, but rather to verify
that records are being maintained and are available for review. If a permittee has problems
meeting either its pathogen or vector attraction reduction requirements (e.g., fecal coliform or
percent volatile solids reduction), the inspector should review treatment operating records to
identify potential noncompliance with the operating requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 503
for the pathogen and vector reduction process employed by the permittee. For example, an
Chapter 10 - Page 213
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
inspector might check a treatment facility's pH or temperature records to determine whether
the sludge has been maintained at the appropriate pH or temperature for the required duration
during treatment.
The inspector should verify that records are available for all disposal practices:
• Volume of sludge disposed of.
• Sludge quality data.
• Specific records appropriate for demonstrating compliance with the general
requirements, management practices, and operational standards.
The inspector should verify whether records are maintained in accordance with permit
requirements. Federal regulations provide that all permits must include a provision requiring
that sludge records be kept by the appropriate entity for five years. The regulations establish
specific recordkeeping requirements for each party involved in the sewage sludge use or
disposal process. During records review, the inspector may observe:
• Records not organized or placed in different areas throughout the facility.
• Non-representative sampling of disposed sludge.
• Incorrect reporting of sludge, e.g., failure to report on a dry weight basis.
• Inaccurate recordkeeping to determine pathogen and vector attraction reduction.
• Process control parameters that are not maintained.
FACILITY SITE REVIEW
In the facility site review, the inspector should include any area where sludge is generated,
treated, stored, dewatered or disposed. A visual inspection can determine where monitoring
devices are place and whether they are appropriate.
Inspection of Solids Handling Unit Processes
Sludge processing arguably poses the greatest challenges in wastewater treatment from the
standpoints of design, operation, and maintenance.
When conducting the walk-through visual inspection of the facility, the inspector should be
aware of, and look for, physical conditions that are indicative of potential or existing problems.
The inspector should also note any out of service equipment and the general conditions of the
area and equipment. Some of the more common indicators of potential problems are listed in
Table 10-7. The presence of these conditions may warrant a more in-depth inspection of the
sludge treatment processes. An optional checklist is provided at the end of this chapter to assist
the inspector during the facility site review. The questions on this checklist are sludge-specific
and should be asked in conjunction with the Facility Site Review checklist. In addition, many of
the questions in the NPDES checklist relate to the overall operation of the facility and therefore,
can also be applied to sludge evaluations (e.g., treatment units properly operated and
maintained).
Chapter 10 - Page 214
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The inspector should determine whether the facility is operating its sludge treatment and
disposal processes in a manner consistent with the requirements established in its NPDES
permit. If the inspector discovers conditions at the facility that threaten public health or the
environment (e.g., contaminating groundwater or surface water, exposing the public to
pathogens or disease vectors, or compromising public safety), the inspector should inform the
enforcement staff so that appropriate action can be taken. If known endangerment is
discovered, the criminal investigations unit should be informed.
Many large-scale operations are conducted outside, such as sludge drying, composting,
temporary and long-term storage, and loading and hauling. Inspectors should note these
outside operations' exposure to rainfall and runoff collection and treatment methods. If
stormwater collection devices have been constructed, the inspector should evaluate the
performance and maintenance of these devices as well as their design capacity (e.g., the 10-
year, 24-hour storm event or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event). Visual observations can detect
obvious problems that may contribute to the contamination of surface water or groundwater
such as erosion, breaches of dikes or berms, or cracks in the concrete or asphalt. The inspector
should inquire as to whether the capacity of the collection devices has ever been exceeded
during any storm event.
The sludge loading area should be inspected to determine how the sludge is being hauled or
transported. The inspector should note the size of the truckloads and the number of truckloads
hauled over a 1-day period (or another time period). Table 10-4, Table 10-5, and Table 10-6 are
useful to the inspector in verifying the permittee's records and reports on the volume of sludge
generated and disposed of.
Sludge Storage
The inspector should also verify that the permittee has adequate storage capacity for its sludge
in the event that its preferred disposal method is interrupted for any reason (e.g.,
noncompliance with cumulative loading rates on the land application site). There are no federal
requirements specifying a minimal storage capacity; the appropriate capacity will vary
depending on the amount of sludge generated and the facility's use or disposal option(s).
Storage capacity should address normal, routine storage prior to disposal and should anticipate
emergency conditions, such as:
• Equipment malfunction
• Inclement weather
• Unanticipated loss of disposal site:
- Farmer decides to discontinue use of sewage sludge
- Landfill violates requirements and may no longer accept sludge or must close
Some states have developed storage capacity requirements. If the permittee cannot dispose of
its sludge in the preferred manner, it should have either adequate storage capacity for its
sludge or clearly established plans for alternative methods of disposal.
Chapter 10 - Page 215
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SAMPLING AND LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)
The sludge inspection should evaluate the nature, scope, and adequacy of sludge sampling and
analysis conducted by the permittee. The most likely existing inspection vehicle for conducting
this evaluation is the PAI, since it involves a detailed assessment of the permittee's self-
monitoring activities, including sample collection and laboratory analysis (likely completed by
an off-site laboratory). The findings of the sampling and laboratory QA review should be
summarized by the inspector and included in the final inspection report for the facility.
Sampling Procedures and Techniques
The inspector's evaluation of the permittee's sludge sampling procedures will address similar
criteria as those evaluated in the context of wastewater sampling. The sampling procedure
elements that should be evaluated during the inspection include:
• Sample collection techniques:
- Selection of representative sampling sites
- Sample types
- Sample volume
- Sample containers
• EPA sample identification methods
• Sample preservation and holding time
• Chain-of-custody and shipment of samples
• Quality control (QC):
- Duplicates
- Blanks
• Data handling and reporting
A detailed discussion on evaluating these elements can be found in Chapter 5. While many of
these elements are evaluated using the same criteria, regardless of the media being sampled,
sludge sample collection techniques and sample preservation are different. The inspector
should review EPA's sewage sludge sampling video and refer to EPA's POTWSludge Sampling
and Analysis Guidance Document (EPA, 1989) for detailed information regarding sludge
sampling procedures. Additionally, the inspector can review 40 CFR Part 136 for additional
methods. Table 10-3 of this manual summarizes appropriate sample locations. Lists of approved
biosolids analytical methods, sample containers, preservation techniques, and holding times for
biosolids samples can be found on EPA's website at: https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/additional-
information-biosolids-managers#analytical. In addition to these references, a few special sludge
sampling considerations are described below.
• Equipment. The equipment used to collect sludge samples is different from that used to
collect wastewater samples. The automatic composite samplers used to collect
wastewater cannot be used to collect sludge samples because the high solids content of
the sludge fouls the tubing. The type of equipment used to collect samples of soil or
Chapter 10 - Page 216
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
other solid waste material is more appropriate for the collection of sludge samples.
Stainless steel buckets, trowels, and augers are typically used to collect solid sludge
cake. Graduated glass or plastic pitchers or cylinders, or plastic or stainless steel buckets
are used to collect liquid sludge samples.
• Sample Location. If the permit does not identify a specific sludge sampling location, the
inspector must select one. See EPA's 1993 sewage sludge sampling video for an
overview of this process (EPA, 1993a). The inspector can review 40 CFR Part 136 for
additional methods. EPA's POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Manual (EPA,
1989) states that for purposes of enforcement, sludge samples must come from the
treatment unit process immediately prior to sludge disposal or end use. Often, the last
unit process is one of the dewatering processes described in the accompanying
technical guidance. Table 10-3, EPA's POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance
Manual (EPA, 1989a), suggests appropriate sampling points for a variety of unit
processes.
Table 10-1. Records Relevant for Sludge Operations
Sludge Use/Disposal Records
• Volume
• Type of use and/or disposal options used
• Use/disposal sites
Sludge Operating Records
• Daily operating log
• Equipment maintenance scheduled and completed
Sludge Monitoring Records
• Constituents/pollutants in sludge
• Mass of sludge generated and disposed of (in dry metric tons per year)
Sludge Sampling and Analytical Data
• Dates, times, and locations of sampling
• Sampling protocols and analytical methods
• Results of analyses
• Dates and times of analyses
• Name(s) of analysis and sampling personnel
Sludge Laboratory Records
• Calibration and maintenance of equipment
• Laboratory bench sheets or logs and calculations
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) records
Chapter 10 - Page 217
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-2. Operating Records for Specific Unit Processes
THICKENING PROCESSES
Gravity Thickening
Dissolved Air Flotation
Centrifuge
• Overflow volume/rate
• Sludge feed rate
• Influent sludge flows
• Influent flow
• Recycle flow
• Volume cake produced
• Percent solids
• Daily operating time
• Percent solids
- Sludge feed
• Percent solids
- Sludge feed
- Thickened sludge
- Sludge feed
- Centrate
- Overflow
- Thickened sludge
- Sludge cake
• Sludge blanket depth
- Subnatant
• Daily operating time
• Floating sludge depth
• Air flow rate
• Retention tank pressure
• Percent solids capture
• Detention time
• Air to solid ratio
STABILIZATION PROCESSES (Pathogen and/or Vector Attraction Reduction)
Aerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Incineration
• Air supply
• Detention time
• Operating schedule
• Solids retention time
• Temperature
• Sludge feed
• Temperature
• pH and alkalinity
- Solids content
• DO level
• Gas production and quality
- Feed rate
• pH
• Volatile acids
- Volatile solids
• Feed sludge
• Feed sludge
• Combustion temperature
- TS, TVS, and pH
- TS, TVS, and pH
• Sludge residence time
- Flow rate
- Flow rate
• Fuel flow
• Digested sludge
• Digested sludge
• Off-gas oxygen content
- SOUR
- TS, TVS, and pH
• Air feed rate
- TS, TVS, and pH
- Flow rate
• Emission control equipment
- Flow rate
• Supernatant
- Pressure drop
• Supernatant
- Flow rate and BOD
• Type of fuel
- Flow rate and BOD
- TSS and pH
• Volume of ash produced
- TSS and pH
• Cleaning frequency
• Stack gas monitoring
Heat Temperature
Composting
Chemical Conditioning/Stabilization
• Temperature/time
• Oxygen concentration
• Chemical types and dosage
• Pressure
• Temperature and time
• Mixing
• Detention time
• Turning frequency
• pH
• Feed sludge
• Percent sludge solids
• Temperature
- TS and TVS
• Type and amount of bulking
- Flow rate
agent(s)
- Percent solids
• Header pressure
• End product volatile solids
Electron Irradiation
Gamma Irradiation
• Sludge feed rate
• Sludge feed rate
• Electron dosage
• Gamma ray source strength
• Temperature
DEWATERING PROCESS
Chapter 10 - Page 218
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-2. Operating Records for Specific Unit Processes
Vacuum Filter
Pressure Filter
Belt Filter Press
• Sludge feed
• Sludge feed percent solids
• Loading rate
- Total solids
• Sludge cake percent solids
• Operating speed
• Sludge cake
• Volume of sludge processed
• Feed slurry
- Total solids
• Cycle length
- Total solids and flow
• Filtrate
• Volume conditioning chemicals
• Dewatered sludge
- Flow
• Filtrate
- Total solids
- BOD
- Flow
- Flow
- TSS
- BOD
• Filtrate and wash water
• Maintenance
- TSS
- BOD and SS
• Spare parts
- TSS and flow
• Preventive maintenance
• Polymer
Drying Bed
Drying Lagoons
Heat Drying
• Sludge loading rate
• Sludge loading rate
• Operating schedule
• Quantity in bed
• Percent solids
- Start-up
• Depth of sludge in bed
- Sludge
- Shut down
• Date deposited
- Decant
• Sludge feed rate
• Detention time
• Quantity in lagoon
• Percent solids
• Ambient temperature
• Depth in lagoon
- Sludge feed
• Drying bed construction (i.e., lined)
• Date deposited
- Dried/Pelletized product
• Undertrain destination
• Drying time
• Fuel consumption
• Percent solids of the sludge feed
• Rainfall
• Airflow
and of the dewatered sludge
• Drying temperature
• Detention time
• Stack gas monitoring
- Oxygen
- Particulates
- Carbon monoxide
- Carbon dioxide
LEGEND:
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
TS = Total Solids
TVS = Total Volatile Solids
BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TSS = Total Suspended Solids
SS = Suspended Solids
SOUR = Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate
Chapter 10 - Page 219
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Tabl
Sludge Type
e 10-3. Sludge Sampling Points
Sampling Point
Anaerobically Digested
Sample from taps on the discharge side of positive displacement
pumps.
Aerobically Digested
Sample from taps on the discharge lines from pumps. If batch digester is
used, sample directly from the digester. Two cautionary notes regarding
this practice:
• If aerated during sampling, air entrains in the sample. Volatile
organic compounds may purge with escaping air.
• When aeration is shut off, solids separate rapidly in well-
digested sludge.
Thickened
Sample from taps on the discharge side of positive displacement
pumps.
Heat Treated
Sample from taps on the discharge side of positive displacement pumps
after decanting. Be careful when sampling heat treatment sludge
because of:
• High tendency for solids separation.
• High temperature of samples (frequently >60°C) can cause
problems with certain sample containers due to cooling and
subsequent contraction of entrained gases.
Dewatered by Belt Filter Press, Plate
and Frame Press, Centrifuge, or
Vacuum Filter Press
Sample from sludge cake discharge chute and conveyor.
Alternatively, sample from collection container or storage bin for the
dewatered sludge; sample from many locations within the storage bin
and at various depths, collect equal samples from each point, and
combine them to form one sample of the total storage bin.
Dewatered or Air Dried in Drying Beds,
or Bin or Truck Bed
Divide bed into four quadrants, collect equal sample volume from the
center of each quadrant, and combine them to form one sample of the
total bed. Each grab sample should include the entire depth of the
sludge (down to the sand).
Composted
Collect full core samples from randomly selected sites in the pile.
Sample directly from front-end loader or other conveyance device as
the sludge is being loaded into trucks to be hauled away.
• Sample Collection Techniques. Obtaining a representative sample of sludge is difficult
when the sludge is not flowing through a pipe or along a conveyer. To obtain a
representative sample of sludge from a sludge bed or lagoon, a compost pile, or a truck,
several samples must be taken from various places in the pile and "combined" to make a
representative sample.
• Sample Preservation. Samples of solid sludge are not usually preserved in the field
because it is difficult to thoroughly mix the preservative throughout the sludge sample.
It is best to preserve sludge samples that are high in solids at the laboratory. Use the
appropriate field preservative to chill the sample to 4°C. Note, some exemptions do
exist such as a sample for the Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate (SOUR), which should be
Chapter 10 - Page 220
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
kept at the same temperature as the aerobic digester and analyzed within 30 minutes of
sample collection.
Laboratory Analysis and Quality Assurance
During a PAI, the inspector is already conducting an in-depth evaluation of the permittee's
laboratory analytical techniques and QA/QC procedures. The following elements are evaluated
during this inspection:
• Permittee sample handling procedures in the laboratory.
• Laboratory analysis techniques:
- Permittee laboratory analytical procedures (analytical methods specified by 40 CFR
Part 503 or other methods established in the permit).
- Laboratory services.
- Instruments and equipment.
- Supplies.
• QA/QC:
- Precision and accuracy of the measurement process.
- Data handling and reporting.
- Sludge records retention (for 5 years).
- Personnel qualifications.
Again, many of these elements are evaluated according to the same criteria regardless of the
sample being analyzed. The inspector is referred to Chapter 7 and EPA's NPDES Compliance
Monitoring Inspector Training Module: Laboratory Analysis (EPA, 1990a) for general guidance
on inspecting the permittee's laboratory procedures. There are some differences in sample
preparation and analytical techniques for sludge with which the inspector should be familiar.
In conducting the sludge component of the PAI, the inspector should closely evaluate the
permittee's sample preparation procedures. The sludge matrix is more complex and variable
than the wastewater matrix; therefore, the laboratory's development of sample preparation
techniques is of particular concern.
The NPDES permit may require the permittee to analyze sludge for conventional pollutants,
inorganic pollutants, metals, and pathogens (depending on the ultimate sludge disposal
practice). For example, sludge that is going to be land applied will be analyzed for nine metals
and nitrogen to determine the appropriate application rate. Table 10-8 lists the constituents
required to be monitored by 40 CFR 503. The regulations at 40 CFR 503.8 contain a listing of
approved analytical methods and volatile solids reduction calculations that must be used for
monitoring sludge quality.
Lists of approved biosolids analytical methods, sample containers, preservation techniques, and
holding times for biosolids samples can be found on EPA's website at:
https://www.epa.gOv/biosolids/additional-information-biosolids-managers#analytical.
Chapter 10 - Page 221
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The inspector should keep the following points in mind when reviewing the permittee's lab and
analytical results:
The sewage sludge standards are expressed on a dry weight basis. Laboratory results for
sludge are typically reported in one of two forms, wet weight (i.e., mg/L) or dry weight
(i.e., mg/kg). Watch out for mg/kg units that are wet weight rather than dry weight. The
laboratory should be providing the results on a dry weight basis. If the laboratory results
are reported on a wet weight basis (i.e., in mg/L), the results for each pollutant in each
sample must be recalculated to determine the dry weight concentration. To accomplish
this conversion, the percent total solids in the sludge sample must be known. Thus, the
lab must analyze the sample for percent solids using Method 2540G of Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd Edition (American Public
Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and World
Economic Forum (WEF), 2013) or by another approved method in 40 CFR Part 136.
The following equation can be used to determine the dry weight concentration because
the equation uses the assumption that the specific gravity of water and sewage sludge
are both equal to one. However, this assumption holds true only when the solids
concentration in the sludge is low. The calculated dry weight concentration may vary
slightly from the actual concentration as the solids content increases because the
density of the sewage sludge may no longer be equal to that of water. This concern does
not arise when the solids content of sludge is usually low. EPA is aware of this potential
problem and may decide regarding this matter at a later date.
Determine the pollutant concentration on a dry weight basis using the following
abbreviated conversion (EPA, 1988):
, pc timi. mam
{% total soldte)
In this formula, PC = Pollutant concentration, and % total solids is in decimal format.
A unit conversion is incorporated into the equation.
• For metals, a common analytical error is that labs conduct the metals analyses using
analytical methods developed for water and wastewater. Analytical methods for water
and wastewater are found in 40 CFR Part 136. Additional information can be found in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public
Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and World
Economic Forum (WEF), 2013), while the solid waste analytical methods are found in
latest version of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods
(EPA, 2014). If non-detects are found for the metal concentrations, it is likely that the
laboratory is not following the method requirement of digesting equivalent to one gram
of dry weight of solid.
Chapter 10 - Page 222
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• For sludge samples, all metals must be analyzed according to the methods presented in
40 CFR Part 136. Note that more than one method is provided for each pollutant. The
difference between the methods is usually the equipment used (i.e., direct aspiration,
furnace, or Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) scan) and the level of detection desired.
Each of the methods is EPA-approved, but certain sample characteristics may require
one to be used instead of another.
• Methods for analyzing additional inorganic parameters (e.g., nitrite, Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)) are also found in 40 CFR Part 136, as well as in Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
EPA's Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge (EPA, 2003) is a primary
reference for regional, state, and local regulatory authorities and their constituents for
successful compliance with 40 CFR Part 503, Subpart D requirements. Several new
equivalencies have been recommended by the Pathogen Equivalency Committee (PEC) since
the latest edition of EPA's Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge (EPA,
2003) and are updated at EPA's Principal Biosolids Guidance website for processes to
significantly reduce pathogens (PSRPs) and processes to further reduce pathogens (PFRPs)
(accessible at: http://www.epa.gov/biosolids). Also note that EPA finalized pathogen reduction
methods for fecal coliform (EPA Methods 1680 or 1681) and Salmonella (EPA Method 1682) in
June 2005. EPA recommends that facilities testing under 40 CFR Part 503 use the new methods;
however, these methods are not required by federal regulations.
Table 10-4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class A Pathogen Reduction Alternatives-1
Alternative Al—Time and Temperature
• Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp. bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
• Sludge temperature at representative locations.
• Time (days, hours, minutes) temperature maintained.
Alternative A2—Alkaline Treatment
• Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp. bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
• Sludge pH.
• Time (hours) pH maintained above 12 (at least 72 hours).
• Sludge temperature.
• Percent solids in sludge after drying (at least 50 percent).
Alternative A3—Analysis and Operation
• Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp. bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
• Analytical results for density of enteric viruses (plaque forming unit/4 grams of total solids, on a dry weight
basis) prior to pathogen reduction and, when appropriate, after treatment.
• Analytical results for density of viable helminth ova (number/4 grams of total solids, dry weight) prior to
pathogen reduction and, when appropriate, after treatment.
• Values or ranges of values for operating parameters to indicate consistent pathogen reduction treatment.
Alternative A4—Analysis Only
• Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp. bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number, dry weight
basis).
• Analytical results for density of enteric viruses (plaque forming unit/4 grams of total solids, dry weight).
Chapter 10 - Page 223
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class A Pathogen Reduction Alternatives-1
•
Analytical results for density of viable helminth ova (number /4 grams of total solids, dry weight).
Alternative A5—Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)
•
Heat Drying:
• Composting:
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp.
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp.
bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable
- Moisture content of dried sludge <10 percent.
number).
- Logs documenting temperature of sludge particles
- Description of composting method.
or wet bulb temperature of exit gas exceeding
- Logs documenting temperature maintained at
80°C.
or above 55°C for 3 days if within vessel or
•
Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion:
static aerated pile composting method.
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp.
- Logs documenting temperature maintained at
bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
or above 55°C for 15 days if windrow compost
- Dissolved oxygen concentration in digester <>1
method.
mg/L.
- Logs documenting compost pile turned at
- Logs documenting temperature maintained at 55-
least five times per day during the 15day
60°C for 10 days.
period, if windrow compost method.
•
Heat Treatment:
• Gamma Ray Irradiation:
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp.
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp.
bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable
- Logs documenting sludge heated to temperatures >
number).
greater than 180°C for 30 minutes.
- Gamma ray isotope used.
•
Pasteurization:
- Gamma ray dosage at least 1.0 megarad.
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp.
- Ambient room temperature log.
bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
• Beta Ray Irradiation:
- Temperature maintained at or above 70°C for at
- Analytical results for density of Salmonella
least 30 minutes.
spp. bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable
number).
- Beta ray dosage at least 1.0 megarad.
- Ambient room temperature log.
Alternative A6—PFRP Equivalent
•
Operating parameters or pathogen levels as necessary to demonstrate equivalency to the PFRP.
•
Analytical results for density of Salmonella sp. bacteria or fecal coliform (most probable number).
a Note that several new equivalencies have been recommended by PEC since 2003, when EPA revised the
principal biosolids guidance document. Also, EPA recommended new methods in 2005 for the analysis of fecal
coliform and Salmonella.
Chapter 10 - Page 224
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-5. Recordkeeping Requirements for Class B Pathogen Reduction Alternatives-1
Alternative Bl—Fecal Coliform Count
•
Number of samples collected during each monitoring event.
•
Analytical results for density of fecal coliform for each sample collected.
Alternative B2—Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP)
•
Aerobic Digestion:
Dissolved oxygen concentration.
Volatile solids content before and after digestion.
Mean residence time of sludge in digester and the corresponding method used to calculate this value.
Logs showing temperature was maintained for sufficient period of time (ranging from 60 days at 15°C to
40 days at 20°C).
•
Air Drying:
Description of drying bed design.
Depth of sludge on drying bed.
Drying time in days.
Daily average ambient temperature.
•
Anaerobic Digestion:
Volatile solids content before and after digestion.
Mean residence time of sludge in digester and the corresponding method used to calculate this value.
Logs showing temperature was maintained for a sufficient period of time (ranging from 15 days at 35°C
to 55°C and 60 days at 20°C).
Temperature logs of sludge in digester.
•
Composting:
Description of composting method.
Daily temperature logs documenting sludge maintained at 40°C for 5 days.
Hourly readings showing temperature exceeded 55°C for 4 consecutive hours.
•
Lime Stabilization:
pH of sludge immediately and then 2 hours after addition of lime, without any further addition of lime.
Alternative B3—PSRP Equivalent
•
Operating parameters or pathogen levels as necessary to demonstrate equivalency to PSRP.
a Note that several new equivalencies have been recommended by PEC since 2003, when EPA revised the
principal biosolids guidance document. Also, EPA recommended new methods in 2005 for the analysis of fecal
coliform and Salmonella.
Table 10-6. Recordkeeping Requirements for Vector Attraction Reduction
Sludge Processing Options
Option 1—Volatile Solids (VS) Reduction
Option 5—Aerobic Processing (Thermophilic Aerobic
Digest ion/Compo sting)
• Volatile solids concentration of raw and final
sludge streams (mg/kg).
• Calculations showing 38 percent reduction in
volatile solids.3
• Sludge detention time in digester/composting.
• Temperature logs showing average temperature
above 45°C and minimum temperature above 40°C
for 14 consecutive days.
Chapter 10 - Page 225
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-6. Recordkeeping Requirements for Vector Attraction Reduction
Sludge Processing Options
Options 2 and 3—Bench-Scale VS Reduction
• One-time description of bench-scale digester.
• Time (days) that sample was further digested in
bench-scale digester (30 days for aerobically and
40 days for anaerobically digested sludge).
• Temperature logs showing temperature
maintained at 20°C for aerobically or between
30°C and 37°C for anaerobically digested sludge.
• Volatile solids concentration of sludge (mg/kg)
before and after bench-scale digestion.
Options 6—Alkaline Treatment
• Logs demonstrating the hours that pH of
sludge/alkaline mixture was maintained (12 for 2
hours and 11.5 for an additional 22 hours).
• Amount of alkaline added to sludge (lbs. or gals).
• Amount of sludge treated.
Option 4—Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate for
Aerobically Digested Sewage Sludge
Options 7 and 8—Drying
• Dissolved oxygen readings for sludge sample over
15-minute intervals (mg/L).
• Temperature logs showing test was corrected to
conducted at 20°C.
• Total solids for sludge sample (g/L).
• SOUR calculations (mg/g).
• Results of percent solids (dry weight) test.
• Presence of unstabilized solids generated during
primary treatment.
a Methods for calculating VS reduction under Option 1 can be found in Appendix C of EPA's Control of Pathogens
and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. EPA-625-R 92-013.
Table 10-7. Sludge Handling Process Evaluation
General Indicators of Problems
• Inadequate sludge removal from clarifiers or thickeners.
• Poor dewatering characteristics of thermal treated sludge.
• Thickened sludge too thin.
• Fouling of overflow weirs on gravity thickeners.
• Air flotation skimmer blade binding on beaching plate.
• Substantial downtime of sludge treatment units.
• Sludge disposal inadequate to keep treatment system in balance.
• Mass balance inappropriate (ratio of sludge wasted should be 0.65-0.85 lbs. of sludge per lb. of BOD
removed).
• Sludge decant or return flows high in solids.3
• Odors.
• Improper loading rates.
Anaerobic Digestion Problems
Chapter 10 - Page 226
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-7. Sludge Handling Process Evaluation
• Inoperative mechanical or gas mixers.
• Inoperative sludge heater or low temperature.3
• Floating cover of digester tilting.
• Inadequate gas production.3
• Inoperative gas burner.
• Supernatant exuding sour odor from either primary or secondary digester.3
• Excessive suspended solids in supernatant.
• Supernatant recycle overloading the WWTP.
• pH problems.3
Aerobic Digestion Problems
• Excessive foaming in tank.3
• Objectionable odor in aerobically digested sludge.3
• Insufficient dissolved oxygen in digester.
• Digester overloaded.
• Clogging of diffusers in digester.
• Mechanical aerator failure in digester.
• Inadequate supernatant removal from sludge lagoons.
• Solids accumulation in tank.
Sludge Dewatering Problems
Drying Beds
• Poor sludge distribution on drying beds.
• Vegetation in drying beds (unless reed design).
• Dry sludge remaining on drying beds.
• Inadequate drying time on drying beds.3
• Some unused drying beds.
• Dry sludge stacked around drying beds where runoff may enter navigable waters.
• Filtrate from sludge drying beds returned to front of plant.
Centrifuge
• Excessive solids in fluid phase of sample after centrifugation.3
• Inadequate dryness of centrifugal sludge cake.3
• Excessive vibration or other mechanical problems.
Filter Press
• High level of solids in filtrate from filter presses or vacuum filters.3
• Thin filter cake caused by poor dewatering.
• Vacuum filter cloth binding.
• Low vacuum on filter.
• Improperly cleaned vacuum filter media.
• Sludge buildup on belts and/or rollers of filter press.
• Excessive moisture in belt filter press sludge cake.3
• Difficult cake discharge from filter presses.
• Filter cake sticks to solids conveying equipment of filter press.
• Frequent media binding of plate filter press.
• Sludge blowing out of filter press.
• Insufficient run time of sludge dewatering equipment.
Sludge Stabilization Problems
Lagoon
Chapter 10 - Page 227
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-7. Sludge Handling Process Evaluation
•
Objectionable odor from sludge lagoon.
•
Damage to dikes around sludge drying lagoons.
•
Unlined sludge lagoons.
•
Sludge lagoons full, overflowing sludge back to plant or to natural drainage.
•
Deep rooted vegetation on dikes or berms.
Composting
•
Piles that give off foul odor.
•
Inoperable blower.
•
Temperature does not reach 122-140°F (50-60°C) or is above 158°F (70°C).
•
Uncontrolled stormwater runoff.
Heat Drving/Pelletizing
•
Excess moisture in sludge feed.
•
Insufficient air flow or drying temperature achieved.
•
Inadequate drying of final product (excess moisture in final product).
•
Excess odors associated with treatment area.
•
Excess odors associated with treated product.
Alkaline Stabilization
•
Insufficient amount of lime (or other alkaline additive) used to assure pH is raised sufficiently.
•
Inadequate mixing provided to assure good contact of lime (or other alkaline additive) with sludge
solids.
•
pH problems.3
•
Excess odors associated with treatment area.
•
Excess odors associated with treated product.
•
Excessive lime dust around treatment equipment.
Incineration
•
Objectionable odors associated with treatment area.
•
Evidence of excessive dust (ash) around unit.
•
Visible smoke or dust exhaust from unit.
•
Lack of compliance with air permit parameters.
•
Spilling or leaking sludge from dewatered sludge transfer equipment.
Sludge Disposal Problems
•
Sludge constituents not analyzed before disposal.
•
Sludge not transported in appropriate and approved vehicle.
•
Surface runoff of sludge at land application site.
•
Liquid sludge (i.e., less than 10 percent solids) applied to landfill site.
•
Sludge fails paint filter test.
•
Inadequate coverage of sludge in subsurface plow injection system.
•
Objectionable odors generated at land application site.3
•
Slow drying of soil-sludge mixture in subsurface injection system.
•
Sludge ponding at land application sites.
•
Flies breeding, vectors, and/or odors at landfill site.
•
Inadequate burial of sludge at landfill site.
•
Excessive erosion at sludge sites.
•
Sludge disposed of in non-permitted sites.
•
Disposal not in accordance with federal, state, or local regulations.
•
Sludge lagoons full and overflowing.3
•
Inadequate runoff control at landfill or land application sites.
a Indicates serious problems with the sludge handling process.
Chapter 10 - Page 228
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 10-8. Pollutants Monitored for Land Application, Surface Disposal, and Incineration
Pollutant
Land Application
Surface Disposal
(Unlined Units)
Incineration
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Nitrogen series
Organism to Be Monitored
Allowable Level in Sludge
Fecal Coliform3
1,000 Most Probable Number (MPN) per gram (Class A) of total solids (dry
weight).
Salmonella sp.a Bacteria (in lieu of
fecal coliform)
3 MPN per 4 grams of total solids (dry weight).
Enteric Viruses'5
Less than one plaque-forming unit per 4 grams of total solids (dry weight).
Viable Helminthb Ova
Less than one viable helminth ovum per 4 grams of total solids (dry weight).
Fecal Coliform0
Less than 2 x 106 MPN or less than 2 x 106 colony-forming units per gram of
total solids (dry weight) (expressed as geometric mean of the results of 7
individual samples).
a All Part 503 Class A Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
b Class A Alternatives 3 and 4 only.
c Class B, Alternative 1.
C. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on biosolids.
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2013). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater.
Clark, J.W., Wiessman, W., and Hammer, M. (1977) Water Supply Pollution Control. Harper and
Row Publishers, 1971Code of Federal Regulations. Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge. 40 CFR Part 503, 58 FR 9387.
Chapter 10 - Page 229
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Culp, G.L., and Folks Heim, N. (1978). Field Manual for Performance Evaluation and
Troubleshooting at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA 430/9-78-001.
Hinrichs, D.J. (1979). Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 430/9-79-010.
Loeht, R.C. (1984). Pollution Control for Agriculture. Academic Press Inc.
National Research Council. (2002). Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and
Practices.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (2013). Wastewater Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Steel, E.W., and McGhee, T.J. (1979). Water Supply and Sewerage. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
U.S. Congress. (1985). Overview of Sewage Sludge and Effluent Management. Office of
Technology Assessment. C/R-36b/#10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1973a). Pathogen Risk Assessment Feasibility Study.
Office of Research and Development. EPA 670/2-73/098.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1973b). Odors Emitted from Raw and Digested Sewage
Sludge. Office of Research and Development. EPA 670/2-73/098.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1975). Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids
Removal. EPA 625/1-75-0032.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1976a). Municipal Sludge Management: EPA
Construction Grants Program. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA 430/9-76/009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1976b). Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland;
Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals. Office of Water
Program Operations. EPA 430/9-76/013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1977). Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental
Factors. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA 430/9-77/004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978a). Applications of Sludge on Agricultural Land.
Municipal Construction Division, Office of Research and Development. EPA 600/2-78/131b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978b). Sewage Disposal on Agricultural Soils: Chemical
and Microbiological Implications. Office of Research and Development. EPA 600/2-78/131b.
Chapter 10 - Page 230
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978c). Operations Manual, Sludge Handling and
Conditioning. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA 430/9-78-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978d). Municipal Sludge Landfills. Environmental
Research Information Center, Office of Solid Waste. EPA 625/1-78/010, SW-705.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment
and Disposal. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA 625/1-79-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1980a). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846). 3rd ed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1980b). Evaluation of Sludge Management Systems.
Office of Water Program Operations. EPA 430/9-80-001, MCD-61.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1981a). Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA
Center for Environmental Research Information. EPA 625/1-81-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1981b). Composting Processes to Stabilize and Disinfect
Municipal Sewage Sludge. Office of Water Program Operations. EPA 430/9-81-011, MCD-79.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1982). Process Design Manual for Dewatering
Municipal Wastewater Sludges. Office of Research and Development. EPA 625/1-82-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). Land Application of Municipal Sludge. Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA 625/1-83/016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984). Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater
Sludge. Intra-Agency Sludge Task Force. EPA 625/10-84-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1985a). Summary of Environmental Profiles and Hazard
Indices for Constituents of Municipal Sludge. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1985b). Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludges.
EPA Center for Environmental Research Information. EPA 625/4-85-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1985c). Municipal Wastewater Sludge Combustion
Technology. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, EPA 625/4-85-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986). Radioactivity of Municipal Sludge. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1987a). Dewatering Municipal Wastewater Sludges,
Office of Research and Development. EPA 625/1-87/014.
Chapter 10 - Page 231
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1987b). Advanced Waste Treatment — Field Study
Training Program.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1988a). Analytical Methods Used in the National
Sewage Sludge Survey.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1988b). Sampling Procedures and Protocols for the
National Sewage Sludge Survey. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989a). POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance
Document. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. EPA 833-B-89-100.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989b). Control of Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater
Sludge. Center for Environmental Research Information. EPA 625/10-89/006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990a). Analytical Methods for the National Sewage
Sludge Survey. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b). NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector
Training Module: Laboratory Analysis. EPA 833-R-90-103.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990c). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA SW-846.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991a). Guidance Manual for NPDES Compliance
Inspector: Evaluation of Sludge Treatment Processes. EPA 833/B-91-100.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991b). Guidance Manual for NPDES Compliance
Inspector: Verifying Compliance with Sludge Requirements.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). A Guide to the Federal EPA Rule for Land
Application of Domestic Septage to Non-Public Contact Sites. (Agricultural Land, Forests, and
Reclamation Sites) Discussed in Relationship to Existing State Rules and Other Federal
Regulations of Septage. EPA 832-B-92-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993a). Video: Sewage Sludge Sampling Techniques.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993b). Preparing Sewage Sludge for Land Application
or Surface Disposal; A Guide for Preparers of Sewage Sludge on the Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge in 40 CFR Part 503. Office of Water. EPA 831-B-93-002a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a). land Application of Sewage Sludge; A Guide for
Land Appliers on the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the Federal Standards
for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge Management in 40 CFR Part 503. EPA 831-B-93-
002b.
Chapter 10 - Page 232
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994b). Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge; A Guide for
Owners/Operators of Surface Disposal Facilities on the Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge
in 40 CFR Part 503. EPA 831-B-93-002c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994c). A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503
Biosolids Rule. EPA 831-B-94-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994d). A Guide for Land Appliers on the Requirements
of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 503.
EPA/831-B-93-002b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995a). Process Design Manual: Land Application of
Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage. EPA/625/R-95/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995b). A Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for
the EPA Part 503 Rule. EPA 832-B-93-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Proposed Rule Revising the Standards for Use
and Disposal of Biosolids. EPA 822-F-99-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000a). Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Alkaline
Stabilization of Biosolids. EPA 832-F-00-052.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000b). Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Centrifuge
Thickening and Dewatering. EPA 832-F-00-053.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000c). Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Belt Filter
Press. EPA 832-F-00-057.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000d). Guide to Field Storage of Biosolids. EPA 832-B-
00-007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in
Sewage Sludge. Office of Research and Development, EPA 625/R-92/013. Guidance updates
accessible on Principal Biosolids Guidance website at:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pec/bsguidance.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes:
Physical/Chemical Methods. SW846 Update V.
Chapter 10 - Page 233
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 11 -
STORMWATER
Contents
A. Background and History 236
Regulation Overview (40 CFR 122.26) 236
B. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (Not Including Construction) 241
Applicability (Who is Covered) 241
Permit Applications for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity 244
Monitoring (including Self-Inspections) 249
C. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 254
Applicability (Who is Covered) 254
Permit Applications for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction
Activity 256
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements 258
SWPPP Implementation/In the Field 264
D. Stormwater Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 266
Applicability (Who is Covered) 266
Permit Applications for Stormwater Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems 267
Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Development 269
SWMP Implementation/In the Field 273
E. References 274
List of Tables
Table 11-1. Summary of Stormwater Permitting Regulations 238
Table 11-2. Summary of Permit Requirements Under the NPDES Stormwater Program
Regulations 240
Table 11-3. SIC Codes Regulated for Stormwater Discharges 250
Table 11-4. Industrial Categories Associated with Industrial Activity 252
Table 11-5. Examples of Site-Specific Industrial Stormwater Control Measures 253
Table 11-6. Site-Specific Construction Stormwater Control Measures 266
Chapter 11 — Page 234
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Associated Appendices
a
No Exposure Certification Form
R.
NPDES Industrial Stormwater Investigation and Case Development Worksheet (Industrial)
s.
Industrial Source Control BMP Questions
T.
Notice of Termination for Stormwater
u.
Typical "C" Coefficients
v.
Rain Zones of the United States
w.
NOAA Rainfall Worksheet
X.
NPDES Construction Stormwater Investigation and Case Development Worksheet (Construction)
Y.
Construction Control Source BMP Questions
Chapter 11 — Page 235
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
REGULATION OVERVIEW (40 CFR 122.26)
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors should be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures," Chapter 12, "Combined Sewer Systems," and
Chapter 13, "Inspecting Green Infrastructure Controls."
1987 Amendments to CWA |
(1) General Rule—prohibits permits for discharges composed entirely of stormwater prior to October 1, 1994
with some exceptions.
(2) Exceptions—identifies five types of stormwater discharges that are to be permitted prior to October 1,
1994.
(3) Permit Requirements—identifies permitting approach for industrial and municipal stormwater discharges.
(4) Permit Application Requirements—identifies application requirements for industrial and municipal
stormwater discharges.
(5) Studies—identifies requirement for report to congress on other sources of stormwater discharges.
(6) Regulations—requires regulations for permitting other types of stormwater discharges to protect water
quality.
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibited the discharge of any pollutants
to navigable waters from a point source unless the discharge was authorized by a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. At the time of the 1972 amendments
to the CWA, sewage treatment plant outfalls and industrial process wastewater were easily
identified as point sources responsible for contributing to the degradation of water quality.
However, as pollution control measures were instituted, it became evident that more diffuse
sources, such as agricultural and urban stormwater runoff, were also contributing to the
problem. In response to this concern, the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 added section
402(p) to the CWA and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a
comprehensive two-phase approach to address stormwater discharges.
The 1987 WQA established new schedules for issuing NPDES permits to industrial and municipal
stormwater dischargers. Industrial stormwater discharge permits must include requirements
implementing Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standards, as well as any more stringent requirements
necessary to achieve water quality standards. Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
permits must require controls to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent
practicable (MEP), including management practices, control techniques and system design and
engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator deems appropriate for
the control of such pollutants.
As required by section 402(p)(4) of the CWA, EPA promulgated Phase I Stormwater regulations
on November 16,1990 (Volume 55 Federal Register (FR) 47990). The regulations set forth
permit application requirements, including definitions, for the five-point source stormwater
Chapter 11 - Page 236
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
discharge categories subject to NPDES permit requirements under section 402(p)(2) of the
CWA:
• A discharge subject to a NPDES permit before February 4, 1987.
• A discharge associated with industrial activity (including construction activities > 5
acres).
• A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of
250,000 or more (large MS4s).
• A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of
100,000 or more but less than 250,000 (medium MS4s).
• A discharge that an NPDES permitting authority determines to be contributing to a
violation of a water quality standard or a significant contributor of pollutants to waters
of the United States.
Pursuant to section 402(p)(6) of the CWA, EPA promulgated Phase II Stormwater regulations on
December 8,1999 (64 FR 68722). Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA required EPA to designate
additional stormwater discharges not already covered by Phase I regulation, based on studies
required under section 402(p)(5) of the CWA, to be regulated "to protect water quality." The
Phase II rule added certain small municipal separate storm sewers systems in urbanized areas
(small MS4s) and small active construction sites (disturbing between 1 and 5 acres) as
stormwater discharges subject to NPDES permitting requirements. The Phase II rule also
established criteria for the permitting authority to designate additional small MS4s and
previously unregulated stormwater discharges, and require NPDES permits for those discharges
(residual designation authority).
The Phase I stormwater regulations are codified primarily in Tile 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 122.26 and the Phase II regulations are primarily in 40 CFR 122.30-122.37. A
summary of these sections is provided in Table 11-1. Stormwater discharged through combined
sanitary and storm sewer systems are not covered by the stormwater regulations.
On November 25, 2014, EPA issued a memorandum noting revisions to the memorandum titled
Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water
Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs (EPA, 2014a). In the
memorandum, EPA encouraged permit writers to include clear, specific, and measurable permit
requirements and where feasible, numeric effluent limitations in NPDES permits for stormwater
discharges. Additionally, permits should contain clear, specific, and measurable elements
associated with the implementation of stormwater control measures (e.g., schedule for
installation, frequency of a practice, or level of performance), as appropriate. The permit should
be supported by documentation that implementation of selected stormwater control measures
will result in achievement of water quality standards. Permitting authorities should also
consider including numeric benchmarks for stormwater control measures and associated
monitoring protocols for estimating stormwater control effectiveness in stormwater permits.
Benchmarks can support an adaptive approach to meeting applicable water quality standards.
While exceeding the benchmark is not generally a permit violation, exceeding the benchmark
Chapter 11 - Page 237
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
would typically require the permittee to take additional action, such as evaluating the
effectiveness of the stormwater control measures, implementing and/or modifying stormwater
control measures, or providing additional measures to protect water quality.
Though industrial facilities, construction sites, and MS4s are distinct and are typically permitted
separately, there is some crossover between these entities. Industrial facilities and construction
sites often discharge to a regulated MS4 and are therefore subject to the local ordinances and
requirements established by the MS4 pursuant to its NPDES permit, as well as the requirements
of the specific facility or site's NPDES stormwater permit. Industrial facilities and construction
sites that are regulated for stormwater are covered under their local MS4 and under either the
EPA or state-issued Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP, for industrial) or the Construction
General Permit (CGP). While the general permits issued by EPA can only apply to facilities in
jurisdictions where EPA is the permitting authority, many states model their own general
permits on EPA's general permits. For example, EPA's MSGP for industrial stormwater covers
stormwater discharges associated with both industrial activity and some construction activity
associated with certain mining and oil and gas facilities. For clarity, the remainder of this
chapter discusses industrial, construction and municipal permitted entities separately. Table
11-2 contains a summary of Permitting Requirements under the NPDES Stormwater Program
Regulations. EPA encourages inspectors to contact the permit writers and/or the permitting
authority for clarification or concerns related to the permit specifications of sites being
inspected.
Table ii-i. Summary of Stormwater Permitting Regulations
40 CFR Part 122—EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
122.1
Purpose and Scope
122.21
Application for a Permit
122.22
Signatories to Permit Applications and Reports
122.26(a)
Permit Requirements
122.26(b)
Definitions
122.26(c)
Application Requirements for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity and Stormwater Discharges Associated with Small Construction Activity
122.26(d)
Application Requirements for Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Discharges
122.26(e)
Application Deadlines
122.26(f)
Petitions
122.26(g)
Conditional Exclusion for "No Exposure" of Industrial Activities and Materials to
Stormwater
122.28
General Permits
122.30
What are the objectives of the stormwater regulations for small MS4s?
122.31
As a tribe, what is my role under the NPDES stormwater program?
Chapter 11 - Page 238
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-1. Summary of Stormwater Permitting Regulations
40 CFR Part 122—EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
122.32
As an operator of a small MS4, am 1 regulated under the NPDES stormwater program?
122.33
If 1 am an operator of a regulated small MS4, how do 1 apply for an NPDES permit and
when do 1 have to apply?
122.34
As an operator of a regulated small MS4, what will my NPDES MS4 stormwater permit
require?
122.35
As an operator of a regulated small MS4, may 1 share the responsibility to implement
the minimum control measures with other entities?
122.36
As an operator of a regulated small MS4, what happens if 1 don't comply with the
application requirements in 122.33 through 122.35?
122.37
Will the small MS4 stormwater program regulations at 122.32 through 122.36 and
122.35 of this chapter change in the future?
122.42
Additional Conditions Applicable to Specified Categories of NPDES Permits
122.44
Establishing Limitations, Standards, and Other Permit Conditions
122.62
Modifications or Revocation and Reissuance of Permits
40 CFR Part 123—State Program Requirements
123.25
Requirements for Permitting
123.35
As the NPDES permitting authority for regulated small MS4s, what is my role?
40 CFR Part 124—Procedures for Decision-making
124.52
Permits Required on a Case-by-Case Basis
Appendix E
Rainfall Zones of the United States
Appendix F
Incorporated Places with Populations Greater Than 250,000 According to Latest
Decennial Census by Bureau of Census
Appendix G
Incorporated Places with Populations Greater Than 100,000 and Less Than 250,000
According to Latest Decennial Census by Bureau of Census
Appendix H
Counties with Unincorporated Urbanized Areas with a Population of 250,000 or More
According to the Latest Decennial Census by the Bureau of Census
Appendix 1
Counties with Unincorporated Urbanized Areas Greater Than 100,000, but Less Than
250,000 According to the Latest Decennial Census by the Bureau of Census
Chapter 11 - Page 239
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-2. Summary of Permit Requirements Under
the NPDES Stormwater Program Regulations
Phase I
Requirements
(November 16,
1990)
Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Regulations
Medium and Large MS4s
(122.26(d))
Establish adequate legal
authority to control
discharges to storm sewer,
inspect, and enforcement.
Identify major stormwater
sources and locations of
outfalls, and provide
characterization data of
discharges.
Develop Stormwater
Management Program:
— Controls for residential
and commercial
activities.
— Illicit discharge detection
and elimination program.
— Controls for municipal
and industrial activities.
— Construction site
controls.
Assess controls and perform
fiscal analysis.
Submit annual report.
Construction Activity
General Permit
Category (x) Construction
Activity (5+Acres)
CGP:
• Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
(SWPPP):
— Site description.
— Description of control
measures for erosion
and sediment, post-
construction
stormwater
management, and
other controls.
— Self-evaluation and
recordkeeping.
Industrial Activity General
Permit
Ten Categories of Industrial
Activity (Categories (i)-(ix), (xi))
MSGP:
SWPPP:
— Site evaluation.
— Description of appropriate
stormwater control
measures.
— Self-evaluation,
monitoring,
recordkeeping, and, in
some circumstances,
reporting.
— If discharging into a
medium or large MS4,
notify the MS4 operator.
Regulated Small MS4
Small Construction Activity
(> 1 and <5 acres)
Industrial
Phase II
Requirements
(December 8,
1999)
• Stormwater Management
Program:
— Public education and
outreach.
— Public participation
efforts.
— Illicit discharge detection
and elimination program.
— Construction runoff
control program for
construction activity
disturbing 1 acre or
greater.
• Generally similar to
category (x)
Construction Activity
requirements above.
• Small construction
waivers requirement.
Option for Conditional no
exposure waiver if certain
criteria are met.
Chapter 11 - Page 240
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-2. Summary of Permit Requirements Under
the NPDES Stormwater Program Regulations
Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Regulations
Construction Activity
General Permit
Industrial Activity General
Permit
Post-construction runoff
control program for
construction activity
disturbing 1 acre or
greater.
— Good housekeeping/
pollution prevention for
municipal operations.
• Conduct assessment of
identified stormwater
control measures and
measurable goals for each
minimum control measure.
• Submit periodic program
_ __
assessment reports.
B. STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY [NOT INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION)
APPLICABILITY (WHO IS COVERED)
The stormwater regulations identify 11 categories of industrial facilities that are engaging in
industrial activity that is regulated under the stormwater program (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i)-
(xi)). EPA defines these categories of industrial facilities using a combination of standard
industrial classification codes and descriptions of facility activities. A description of these 11
categories is provided in Table 11-5. One of the 11 categories, category (x), is construction
activity disturbing 5 acres or more. This category is discussed separately in Section 11.C because
of the significant differences in site activities and requirements at construction sites compared
to the other 10 industrial categories.
EPA estimates that nationwide more than 150,000 industrial facilities are required to obtain
NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity.
The NPDES regulations, at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), define "stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity." Specifically, the phrase means "the discharge from any conveyance that is
used for collecting and conveying stormwater and that is directly related to manufacturing,
processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant." For the 10 categories of
industries identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i)-(ix), and (xi), the term includes, but is not limited
to, stormwater discharges from the following:
Chapter 11 - Page 241
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Industrial plant yards.
• Immediate access roads and rail lines used or traveled by carriers of raw materials,
manufactured products, waste material, or byproducts used or created by the facility.
• Material handling sites.
• Refuse sites.
• Sites used to apply or dispose of process waste waters (as defined at 40 CFR Part 401).
• Sites used for storage and maintenance of material handling equipment.
• Sites used for residual treatment, storage, or disposal.
• Shipping and receiving areas.
• Manufacturing buildings.
• Storage areas (including tank farms) for raw materials and intermediate and finished
products.
• Areas where industrial activity has taken place in the past and significant materials
remain and are exposed to stormwater.
(•, 'f 'f:; >J'' include storage, loading and unloading, transportation, or conveyance
of any raw material, intermediate product, final product, by-product, or waste product. The term
excludes areas located on plant lands separate from the plant's industrial activities, such as the office
buildings and accompanying parking lots as long as the drainage from the excluded areas is not mixed
with stormwater drained from any of the above described areas (40 CFR 122.26(b)( 14)).
One of the first questions a stormwater inspector must consider is the applicability of the
stormwater permitting regulations to a specific facility. The inspector should determine what
types of industrial activities are performed by the facility, and which SIC codes may apply to the
facility. Industrial categories covered by 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) include:
• Facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitation guidelines (40 CFR chapter I,
subchapter N).
• Industries defined by certain Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes (e.g., lumber
and wood products, primary metal industry).
• Mineral Industry.
• Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
• Landfills, including land application sites and open dumps.
• Facilities that recycle, reclaim, or salvage materials including scrap material.
• Steam electric power facilities.
• Transportation facilities that have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning
operations or airport deicing operations.
• Sewage treatment plants.
• Construction activities.
• Light Industry classified by SIC Code.
Chapter 11 - Page 242
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Facilities within these industrial categories require a stormwater permit whenever any of the
listed activities occur on-site, regardless of the facility's SIC code or other types of activity. See
Table 11-5 for a more detailed description of these categories. As mentioned above, some of
the covered industrial categories are defined by SIC code. Where multiple industrial activities
are conducted at a site, with each activity having a distinct SIC code, the facility's primary SIC
code generally determines whether a facility is regulated pursuant to one of the listed SIC
codes. The primary SIC code is based on the primary industrial activity occurring at the site (see
Table 11-4 for a list of primary SIC codes covered by the stormwater permitting requirements).
EPA recommends comparing the value of receipts or revenues and/or number of people
employed for each industrial activity to identify the primary activity of the facility. If the SIC
code for this primary activity is identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), then the facility is subject to
the stormwater permitting requirements. However, if the facility's primary activity is not
included in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), the facility is not subject to the permitting requirements even
if the facility conducts secondary activities that are identified therein (unless otherwise
designated by the Director as needing a permit).
Some of the industrial categories are defined using a narrative description rather than SIC
codes. In these instances, any facility engaging in an industrial activity that meets a narrative
description is required to obtain permit coverage for those specific activities regardless of the
facility's SIC code(s).
Exemption for Mining or Oil and Gas Facilities
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(iii) specify that stormwater discharges from oil or gas
exploration, production, processing, treatment operations, or transmission, do not require
NPDES permit coverage unless the facility has had a stormwater discharge that contained a
reportable quantity of a designated hazardous substance for which notification is or was
required (pursuant to 40 CFR 117.21, 40 CFR 302.6 or 40 CFR 110.6), or has had a stormwater
discharge that contributes to a violation of a water quality standard.
Consistent with 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(iv), a discharge composed entirely of stormwater from a
mining operation associated with oil or gas is not required to submit a permit application unless
the discharge has contacted any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished
product, byproduct, or waste products located on the site of such operations.
For more information on the applicability of stormwater regulations to oil and gas facilities,
please visit http://www.epa.gOv/npdes/oil-and-gas-stormwater-permitting#undefined.
No Exposure Conditional Exclusion
The Phase II No Exposure Conditional Exclusion significantly expands the scope of the original
no exposure exclusion eligibility requirements. Under 40 CFR 122.26(g), operators of regulated
industrial facilities in any of 10 categories of "stormwater discharges associated with industrial
activity," may qualify for the exclusion if none of the facility's industrial materials or activities
are exposed to stormwater. See 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1) for a list of qualification criteria. As long as
the condition of "no exposure" exists at a qualified facility, stormwater discharges from the
facility are excluded from the definition of "stormwater discharges associated with industrial
Chapter 11 - Page 243
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
activity." The facility operator must submit a no exposure certification exclusion to the
permitting authority, EPA or the authorized state, once every five years and is subject to
periodic inspections to determine compliance with the "no exposure" conditions. The no
exposure certification replaces the previous "light industry" no exposure exemption included
under the Phase I Stormwater Program. A no exposure certification form can be found in
Appendix Q.
i-.- : y>'riK v- means all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm-resistant shelter
to prevent exposure to rain, snow, snowmelt, and/or runoff. Industrial materials or activities include,
but are not limited to, material handling equipment or activities, industrial machinery, raw materials,
intermediate products, byproducts, final products, or waste products (40 CFR 122.26(g)).
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
Industrial facilities have two NPDES permit options for stormwater discharges—coverage under
1) a general permit or 2) an individual permit. Most industrial facilities have permit coverage
under a general permit, which is developed for facilities sharing similar discharge
characteristics. Individual permits are developed when a facility requires permit coverage but
either the facility or the permitting authority does not believe a general permit is appropriate
based on the discharge characteristics. Where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority, the
Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) issued on June 4, 2015 (80 FR 34403), is the most recent
general permit available to industrial facility operators. A copy of the 2015 MSGP and related
documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-
activities#msgp.
The EPA MSGP covers 29 industrial sectors. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and
narrative descriptions identify the categories of industrial facilities within each of the 29
sectors. Though the EPA MSGP is applicable only in areas where EPA is the permitting authority,
similar general permits may be available in NPDES-authorized states. Information related to the
EPA MSGP and individual permits is presented below.
General Permit/Notice of Intent
To apply for permit coverage under EPA's or a state's MSGP, a facility operator must complete
and submit an electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) form, or the applicable form used by the state
NDPES permitting authority. Those facilities already covered under the prior MSGP are required
to submit a new eNOI each time the MSGP is re-issued. The eNOI requests a variety of basic
facility information, including latitude/longitude of the facility, and information related to the
Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Permit applicants have the
option of either providing an internet link to their stormwater pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) or providing compliance information directly on the eNOI form including a description
of industrial activities exposed to stormwater, a list of pollutants associated with each industrial
activity exposed to stormwater, a description of the control measure that will be employed, a
schedule for good housekeeping and maintenance, and a schedule for all required inspections.
Chapter 11 - Page 244
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The deadline for submission of an NOI to be covered under the 2015 EPA MSGP was September
2, 2015 for most existing sources.
Under EPA's 2015 MSGP, new facilities and facilities that change ownership or operators must
generally submit an NOI at least 30 days prior to the commencement of discharge or change in
ownership/operator.
EPA has developed the eNOI for industrial facilities that seek coverage under EPA's MSGP,
which can be found on EPA's Electronic Multi-Sector General Permit Notice of Intent (eNOI)
home page (http://www.epa.gOv/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities#overview).
For the 2015 MSGP, permittees submit Notices of Intent (NOIs)—as well as Notices of
Termination (NOTs), Annual Reports, and No Exposure Certifications—using the NPDES
eReporting Tool for the MSGP(NeT-NSGP). Permittees that are required to submit DMRs use
NetDMR to submit them electronically.
In rare circumstances the EPA Regional Office may grant facility operators an electronic
reporting waiver when needed. In such cases, the operator mails the paper forms provided in
the 2015 MSGP.
Individual Permits
There are circumstances when a general permit is either not available or not applicable to a
specific industrial facility. A facility operator may obtain coverage under an individual permit
instead, developed by the NPDES permitting authority specifically for that facility. An individual
permit may be the only option when:
• The NPDES permitting authority requires a facility operator to apply for individual
permit coverage.
• The facility operator is unable to certify eligibility with the conditions of the general
permit, because the general permit does not adequately cover the regulated facility,
process or discharge.
A summary of the permit application deadlines is presented in Table 11-3. The Transportation
Act of 1991 modified the application deadlines for industrial activities owned or operated by
municipalities (i.e., types of industrial activities covered by MSGP). The Phase II Rule required
industrial activities operated by municipalities with populations less than 100,000 to obtain
permit coverage by no later than March 10, 2003, (unless the NPDES permitting authority
chooses to phase-in permit coverage on a watershed basis and establishes other deadlines). As
such, all industrial activities defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) are now required to obtain
coverage, unless waived.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements/Office Review
In most cases, operators must prepare a SWPPP for the industrial facility before submitting a
Notice of Intent for permit coverage. The SWPPP must be signed by a responsible corporate
official such as a president, vice president, or general partner as identified in the EPA MSGP.
Under most permits, the SWPPP is to be kept at the facility at all times (or other local location
Chapter 11 - Page 245
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
accessible to the EPA, a state, tribal, or territorial agency with jurisdiction over water quality
protection; local government officials; or the operator of a MS4 receiving discharges from the
site) and must be available for review when requested by EPA or by the operator of the MS4
when the facility discharges to a municipal separate storm sewer.
For large or complex facilities, it may be appropriate for the inspector to request a copy of the
SWPPP prior to inspection to be more familiar with the facility during the inspection. Inspectors
should check to see if the facility has posted their SWPPP on line. The eNOI for the 2015 MSGP
gives permit applicants the option of either posting their SWPPP on line or providing additional
information in their application, such as a description of industrial activities exposed to
stormwater, a list of pollutants associated with each industrial activity exposed to stormwater,
a description of the control measure that will be employed, a schedule for good housekeeping
and maintenance, and a schedule for all required inspections. Otherwise, the inspector will
need to obtain a copy of, and review, the SWPPP or at least parts of the SWPPP during the
inspection. At a minimum, the inspector should review the site map prior to conducting the
field inspection to understand the site and the existing/planned stormwater controls, and carry
a copy of the site map during the inspection when possible. Depending on the time available for
the inspection and the size of the SWPPP, the inspector may request a copy of the SWPPP for
review after the inspection.
In reviewing the SWPPP, the inspector should evaluate whether it contains all the required
elements specified in the applicable permit (e.g., the current EPA MSGP, the state General
Permit in NPDES-authorized states, or an individual permit issued to the facility).
The 2015 EPA MSGP lists the following specific items that must be included in the SWPPP:
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Team identifying individuals responsible for
developing, implementing, maintaining, and revising the SWPPP.
• Description of industrial activities at the facility.
• General location map depicting the facility and location of receiving waters.
• Legible site map indicating:
- Location of potential pollutant sources and significant materials exposed to
precipitation.
- Locations of all stormwater conveyances including ditches, pipes, and swales.
- Direction of stormwater flow.
- Location of existing control measures.
- Location of all surface water bodies.
- Location where major spills or leaks have occurred.
- Locations of activity areas exposed to precipitation, including fueling stations,
vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or cleaning areas, processing and storage
areas, access roads, etc.
- Locations of stormwater inlets, outfalls and outline of areas draining to such outfalls.
Chapter 11 - Page 246
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Location and description of non-stormwater discharges.
- Location and source of runoff from adjacent property containing significant
quantities of pollutants of concern.
• Summary of potential pollutant sources.
• Areas of spills and leaks during prior three-year period.
• Documentation of non-stormwater discharge evaluations.
• Location of salt storage areas.
• Summary of sampling data.
• Stormwater controls to include a description of existing and planned control measures.
• Summary of schedules and procedures pertaining to control measures, and monitoring
and inspections.
• Documentation to support eligibility considerations for other federal laws such as
those regarding endangered species or historic properties.
These items are detailed in Section 5 of the EPA's 2015 MSGP, which covers the general
requirements for a SWPPP. In addition, the EPA MSGP contains sector-specific SWPPP
requirements, which are found in Section 8 of the EPA 2015 MSGP. Finally, a state general
permit may contain different and/or additional required items. The inspector should have the
applicable state general permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities.
Additionally, regulated small MS4s require post-construction stormwater management in new
development and redevelopment projects. Post-construction stormwater management is
required on projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than
one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, that discharge into a
regulated small MS4. The permittee is required to develop, implement, and enforce a program
to address stormwater runoff, including the development, implementation, and long-term
operation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) appropriate for the
community. Such BMPs may include stormwater detention structures, infiltration measures, or
velocity dissipation devices installed in outfall channels to prevent erosion. Each state has
developed its own program listing the criteria for post-construction BMPs to ensure water
quality is maintained after the construction project has been completed. For a list of state
programs, visit: https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_state_summary_standards.pdf.
NOTE: As defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(12), significant materials include, but are not limited to:
raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished
materials such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or production;
hazardous substances designated under section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); any chemical the facility is required to
report pursuant to section 313 of Title III of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) (http://www2.epa.gov/epcra/consolidated-list-lists); fertilizers; pesticides; and waste
products such as ashes, slag, and sludge that have the potential to be released with stormwater
discharges.
Chapter 11 - Page 247
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The SWPPP may incorporate or may be incorporated into other plans that the facility has
prepared for other permits or programs, including spill prevention control and countermeasure
(SPCC) Plans and BMP programs (specific practices or actions used to reduce or control impacts
to water bodies).
SWPPP Implementation/In the Field
In the field, the inspector should verify that the map and description of potential pollutant
sources in the SWPPP reflect current conditions. In addition, the inspector should verify that
measures and controls described in the SWPPP are being implemented as described in the
SWPPP. These measures and controls will include items such as:
• Good housekeeping or upkeep of industrial areas exposed to stormwater.
• Preventive maintenance of stormwater controls and other facility equipment.
• Spill prevention and response procedures to minimize the potential for and the impact
of spills.
• Inspections of areas where industrial materials or activities are exposed to stormwater,
including evaluation of existing control measures.
• Employee training on pollution prevention measures and controls and recordkeeping
(described in detail below).
• Stabilization measures or structural controls to limit soil erosion.
• Traditional stormwater management measures (e.g., oil/water separators, vegetative
swales, detention ponds) where they are appropriate for the site.
The inspector should ensure that, if corrective action is needed, the permittee immediately
takes all reasonable steps necessary to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a
permanent solution is installed and made operational, including cleaning up any contaminated
surfaces so that the material will not discharge in subsequent storm events. Any corrective
actions taken should be recorded and the documentation kept on-site with the SWPPP.
Additionally, the inspector should verify that the permittee modifies the SWPPP as necessary,
when a corrective action results in a change in the control measures implemented on-site.
The inspector should evaluate any SWPPP implementation schedules developed by the facility
(e.g., dates for putting improved housekeeping measures into practice). The inspector should
also determine whether appropriate individuals are assigned to implement the SWPPP and
whether these individuals are aware of the implications of that designation. If the SWPPP calls
for installation of structural controls, the inspector should verify that the controls are in place
and in good working order, or that the facility is meeting its scheduled for installing control
features. The inspector should ensure that facility management approves of the
implementation schedule and strategy, and is aware of the SWPPP process. The inspector
should document stormwater discharges observed during the inspection, taking photographs as
necessary to record the observation. The inspector may use the NPDES Industrial Stormwater
Investigation and Case Development Worksheet (Industrial), included in Appendix R, to record
observations. The NPDES Industrial Stormwater Worksheet contains the components of the
industrial stormwater program that should be evaluated during the inspection. The inspection
Chapter 11 - Page 248
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
may use the Industrial Source Control BMP Questions sheet, located in Appendix S, as a
resource for recording observations on the condition of on-site stormwater control measures.
In general, SWPPP implementation includes employee training on how to carry out the
provisions of the SWPPP and how to implement control measures. In addition, employee
training on the components and goals of the SWPPP must, if required by the permit, be
performed at all levels of responsibility. The inspector should verify that there are training
programs and that the training focuses on spill prevention and response, good housekeeping
practices, materials management, and how to perform inspections. Site-specific control
measures for industrial activities are summarized in Table 11-6.
MONITORING (INCLUDING SELF-INSPECTIONS)
Self-Inspections
Routine Facility Inspections
The SWPPP must, if required by the permit, have procedures for routine site inspections to be
performed at least quarterly at the facility. These consist of examination of stormwater
discharges and control measures, looking for indications of stormwater pollutants in the
discharge and are intended to determine the need for additional maintenance, good
housekeeping, or other control measures. During the quarterly site inspections, qualified
personnel must examine the following:
• Industrial materials, residue, or trash that may have or could come into contact with
stormwater.
• Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks and other containers.
• Off-site tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or
exit the site.
• Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to
exposed areas.
• Control measures needing replacement, maintenance, or repair.
Quarterly Visual Assessment of Stormwater Discharges
In addition to routine inspections, the permittee must collect a stormwater sample from each
outfall and conduct a visual assessment of each of the samples, looking for indications of
stormwater pollutants in the outfall discharge. These samples must be collected in such a
manner that the samples are representative of the stormwater discharge. During the quarterly
visual assessment, qualified personnel must inspect the samples for:
• Color
• Odor
• Clarity (diminished)
• Floating solids
• Settled solids
• Suspended solids
Chapter 11 - Page 249
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Foam
• Oil sheen
• Other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution
Both routine facility inspections and quarterly monitoring inspections must be documented and
the documentation must be maintained on-site with the SWPPP.
Monitoring Requirements
There are several distinct categories of monitoring requirements and numeric effluent
limitations that the facility may be subject to under the 2015 EPA MSGP: 1) quarterly
benchmark monitoring, 2) annual effluent limitations guidelines monitoring, 3) state- or tribal-
specific monitoring, 4) impaired waters monitoring, and 5) other monitoring required by the
permit authority. The monitoring requirements, benchmark concentrations and numeric
effluent limitations applicable to the facility depend on several factors, including 1) the type(s)
of industrial activities generating stormwater runoff from the facility (i.e., the subsector); 2) the
impairment status of the receiving waterbodies; and 3) the state, tribe, or territory where the
facility is located. Depending on the facility's sector (identified in MSGP Section 1.1.2), different
monitoring requirements and numeric limitations apply. The 2015 EPA MSGP includes specific
benchmark monitoring requirements for certain classes of industrial sites based on the
pollutants they potentially discharge. State NPDES permitting authorities may, if authorized by
state law, include more stringent monitoring conditions (CWA section 510 preserves such
authority). Therefore, the inspector should review the facility's permit to identify such
requirements.
For specific monitoring requirements, the inspector should review EPA's most current MSGP
(where applicable), the state NPDES permit, or the facility-specific individual permit. The permit
will contain specific conditions as to the sample type, location, frequency, as well as the specific
parameters that must be analyzed. If it is necessary for the inspector to collect samples, the
inspector should refer to Chapter 5 of this manual and to EPA's Industrial Stormwater
Monitoring and Sampling Guide (EPA, 2009) for specific details on sampling and analyses.
Table 11-3. SIC Codes Regulated for Stormwater Discharges
SIC
Description
MINING
10
Metal Mining
12
Coal Mining
13
Oil and Gas Extraction
14
Mining and Quarrying or Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels
MANUFACTURING
20
Food and Kindred Products
21
Tobacco Products
22
Textile Mill Products
23
Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and Similar Materials
Chapter 11 - Page 250
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-3. SIC Codes Regulated for Stormwater Discharges
SIC
Description
24
Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture
2434
Wood Kitchen Cabinets
25
Furniture and Fixtures
26
Paper and Allied Products
265
Paperboard Containers and Boxes
267
Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Except Containers and Boxes
27
Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries
28
Chemicals and Allied Products
283
Drugs
285
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products
29
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
30
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products
31
Leather and Leather Products
311
Leather Tanning and Finishing
32
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
323
Glass Products, Made of Purchased Glass
33
Primary Metals Industry
34
Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment
3441
Fabricated Structural Metal
35
Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment
36
Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components, Except Computer Equipment
37
Transportation Equipment
373
Ship and Boat Building and Repairing
38
Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical and Optical
Goods; Watches and Clocks
39
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
40
Railroad Transportation
41
Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation
42
Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing
4221
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
4222
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
4225
General Warehousing and Storage
43
United States Postal Service
44
Water Transportation
45
Transportation by Air
WHOLESALE TRADE
50
Wholesale Trade—Durable Goods
5015
Motor Vehicle Parts, Used
5093
Scrap and Waste Material
51
Wholesale Trade—Nondurable Goods
5171
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Chapter 11 - Page 251
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-4. Industrial Categories Associated with Industrial Activity
The 11 categories engaging in industrial activity are described below. Descriptions of SIC codes
applicable to the stormwater regulations are provided in Table 11-4.
(i) Facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance
standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N (except
facilities with toxic pollutant effluent standards that are exempted under category (xi) below.
(ii) Facilities classified as SIC 24 (except 2434), 26 (except 265 and 267), 28 (except 283), 29, 311, 32
(except 323), 33, 3441, and 373.
(iii) Facilities classified as SIC 10 through 14 (mineral industry) including active or inactive mining
operations (except for areas of coal mining operations no longer meeting the definition of a
reclamation area under 40 CFR 434.11(1) because the performance bond issued to the facility by
the appropriate SMCRA authority has been released, or except for areas of non-coal mining
operations that have been released from applicable state or federal reclamation requirements
after December 17, 1990) and oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment
operations, or transmission facilities that discharge stormwater contaminated by contact with or
that has come into contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished
products, byproducts or waste products located on the site of such operations; (inactive mining
operations are mining sites that are not being actively mined, but which have an identifiable
owner/operator; inactive mining sites do not include sites where mining claims are being
maintained prior to disturbances associated with the extraction, beneficiation, or processing of
mined materials, nor sites where minimal activities are undertaken for the sole purpose of
maintaining a mineral claim).
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including those that are operating
under interim status or a permit under subtitle C of RCRA.
(v) Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received any industrial
wastes (waste that is received from any of the facilities described under this subsection)
including those that are subject to regulation under subtitle D of RCRA.
(vi) Facilities involved in the recycling of materials, including metal scrap yards, battery reclaimers,
salvage yards, and automobile junkyards, including but not limited to those classified as SIC 5015
and 5093.
(vii) Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling sites.
(viii) Transportation facilities classified as SIC 40, 41, 42 (except 4221-25), 43, 44, 45, and 5171 that
have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning operations, or airport deicing operations.
Only those portions of the facility that are either involved in vehicle maintenance (including
vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication), equipment cleaning
operations, airport deicing operations, or that are otherwise identified under paragraphs (i)—(vii)
or (ix)-(xi) of this section are associated with industrial activity.
(ix) Treatment works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system, used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
municipal or domestic sewage, including land dedicated to the disposal of sewage sludge that
are located within the confines of the facility, with a design flow of 1.0 million gallons a day
(MGD) or more, or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR Part 403.
Chapter 11 - Page 252
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-4. Industrial Categories Associated with Industrial Activity
Not included are farm lands, domestic gardens or lands used for sludge management where
sludge is beneficially reused and that are not physically located in the confines of the facility, or
areas that are in compliance with section 405 of the CWA.
(x) Construction activity including clearing, grading and excavation activities except: operations that
result in the disturbance of less than five acres of total land area that are not part of a larger
common plan of development or sale. Note—this category of industrial activity is typically
covered under a construction stormwater general permit, and not an industrial stormwater
general permit.
(xi) Facilities under SIC 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434, 25, 265, 267, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31 (except 311), 323, 34
(except 3441), 35, 36, 37 (except 373), 38, 39, 4221-4225, (and which are not otherwise
included within categories (\)-(x).
Table 11-5. Examples of Site-Specific Industrial Stormwater Control Measures
Flow Diversion Practices: Flow diversion channels stormwater away from industrial activities to
prevent stormwater contact with industrial pollutants. Additionally, flow diversion may be used to
channel polluted stormwater directly to a treatment facility.
Flow diversion practices include stormwater conveyances (e.g., channels, gutters, drains, and sewers),
diversion dikes, and graded areas and pavement.
Exposure Minimization Practices: Exposure minimization eliminates or minimizes the contact of
stormwater with industrial activities and its pollutants. If contact of stormwater with pollutants can
be minimized, the costs of collecting and treating and stormwater and the environmental releases
that occur will be reduced.
Exposure minimization practices include containment diking, curbing, drip pans, collection basins,
sumps, covering, vehicle positioning, and loading and unloading by air pressure or vacuum.
Mitigative Practices: Mitigation cleans up or recovers a substance (i.e., potential pollutant) before it
contacts stormwater. Mitigation is a second step after pollution prevention.
Mitigative practices include sweeping, shoveling, excavation practices, vacuum and pump systems,
sorbents, and gelling agents.
Other Preventative Practices: Other preventative practices can be taken to limit/prevent the exposure
of stormwater to industrial activities. These practices may be either structural or procedural
measures taken to reduce/eliminate exposure.
Other preventative practices include preventative monitoring practices, dust control (land
disturbances and demolition areas), dust control (industrial activities), signs and labels, security, area
control procedures, and vehicle washing.
Sediment and Erosion Prevention Practices: Sediment and erosion prevention can be accomplished
using seven general practices: vegetate the site, minimize soil exposure to stormwater, keep runoff
Chapter 11 - Page 253
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-5. Examples of Site-Specific Industrial Stormwater Control Measures
from disturbed areas, stabilize disturbed soils, slow down runoff, provide drainage ways for runoff,
and remove sediment from the runoff before it leaves the site.
Sediment and erosion prevention practices include vegetative practices, structural erosion
prevention, and sediment control practices.
Infiltration Practices: Infiltration practices are measures that increase the infiltration of stormwater
runoff into the ground using very porous soils. Infiltration practices may also reduce the velocity of
stormwater, thereby minimizing erosion potential of the runoff.
Infiltration practices include vegetated filter strips, grassed swales, level spreaders, infiltration
trenches, and porous pavements/concrete grids and modular pavements.
For more examples of industrial stormwater control measures, visit
https://www.epa.gOv/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities#overview
C. STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
APPLICABILITY (WHO IS COVERED)
Stormwater discharged from construction sites is a significant contributor of sediment to our
surface waters. Sediment-laden construction stormwater discharges can result in aquatic
habitat destruction and detrimental changes to hydrologic patterns, including increased stream
flows and flooding. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations from uncontrolled construction
site discharges can be more than 150 times greater than the concentration of TSS from
stormwater discharges on undeveloped land.
Large Construction Activity
As mentioned earlier, the Phase I Rule identifies eleven categories of industrial activity in the
definition of "stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity" that must obtain a
NPDES stormwater discharge permit (see Section 11.B). Category (x) of this definition includes
construction activity (including clearing, grading, and excavation) that results in a total land
disturbance of 5 acres or greater. Disturbances of less than 5 acres are also regulated under
category (x) if they are part of a "larger common plan of development of sale" with a planned
disturbance of 5 acres or greater. Phase I construction activity is commonly referred to as
"large" construction activity. The Phase I rule requires all operators of large construction
activity to obtain a NPDES stormwater discharge permit before discharging stormwater runoff
to a municipal separate storm sewer system or waters of the United States.
Chapter 11 - Page 254
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
:¦¦¦• .. can include road building, construction of residential houses, office buildings, industrial
sites, or demolition.
... can include exposed soil due to clearing, grading, or excavation activities.
¦ . - . -.. y. . : describes a situation in which multiple construction activities
occur in a contiguous area.
is a person that has either operational control of construction project plans and specifications, or
day-to-day operational control of activities necessary to ensure compliance with stormwater permit
conditions.
Small Construction Activity
Under Phase II stormwater regulations, stormwater discharges from construction site activities
that result in a land disturbance equal to or greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres are
regulated as "stormwater discharges associated with small construction activity" (see 40 CFR
122.26(b)(15)).Construction activities disturbing less than 1 acre are also included in Phase II of
the NPDES stormwater program if they are part of a larger common plan of development or
sale with a planned disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres, or if
they are designated by the NPDES permitting authority.
Small Construction Waivers
Small construction activity does not require permit coverage when the construction operator
can certify one of two waivers (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)(i)(A) and (B). Under the Phase II Rule,
NPDES permitting authorities have the option to provide a waiver from Phase II coverage and
requirements when the operator certifies to one of two conditions:
1. Low predicted rainfall potential (i.e., activity occurs during a negligible rainfall period),
where the rainfall erosivity factor ("R" in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
would be less than 5 during the period of construction activities).
2. A determination that stormwater controls are not necessary based on either:
a. A "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) that address the pollutant(s) of concern8 for
construction activities.
b. An equivalent analysis for non-impaired waters that determines allocations are not
needed to protect water quality based on consideration of in-stream concentrations,
expected growth in pollutant concentrations from all sources, and a margin of safety.
To qualify for the Rainfall Erosivity Factor Waiver, the construction site operator must
determine the value of the rainfall erosivity factor (R factor) in the RUSLE and then certify to the
permitting authority that the factor is less than 5 during the period of construction. A
construction site operator will need site-specific data to calculate the values for rainfall
erosivity using RUSLE. Calculations may also be made online by going to the Low Erosivity
8 Pollutants of concern include sediment, parameters that address sediment (such as total suspended solids,
turbidity, or siltation) and any other pollutant identified as a cause of impairment for a receiving waterbody.
Chapter 11 - Page 255
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Waiver (LEW) Calculator found at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/rainfall-erosivity-factor-
calculator-small-construction-sites.
To qualify for the Water Quality Waiver, the operator of the construction site would need to
certify that the facility's construction activity will take place, and the stormwater discharges will
occur, within the area covered by the TMDLs or equivalent analysis. A certification form is
provided by EPA or the NPDES permitting authority.
An inspector should verify that the construction project qualifies for a waiver. Small
construction activities disturbing less than 1 acre previously designated by the permitting
authority to need NPDES coverage are not eligible for these waivers.
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Operators of both small and large construction activities (with limited exceptions discussed
above) must obtain coverage under a NPDES construction stormwater permit. Where EPA is the
NPDES permitting authority, the EPA Construction General Permit (CGP), issued on February 16,
2017, was, at publication, the only general permit option available. The EPA CGP can be used
for discharges from construction sites that will disturb one acre or more where EPA is the
permitting authority. The permit and associated resources are located at
http://www.epa.gOv/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-activities#overview. In areas
where a state is the NPDES permitting authority, construction site operators must obtain
coverage under a state-issued permit. NPDES-authorized states typically issue their own CGPs.
However, if an EPA or state-issued CGP is either not available or not applicable to a particular
construction site, operators must apply for an individual permit. For a list of state construction
general permits see http://www.envcap.org/statetools/swrl/swrl.html or
https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=GPWI:HOME.
General Permit/Notice of Intent
Much like the industrial facilities that apply for general permits, operators of construction sites
that apply for permit coverage under an EPA or state-issued CGP must complete, certify, and
submit to the appropriate NPDES permitting authority an NOI form or other applicable
application form. The NOI requests a variety of information, including, for the EPA NOI form,
information related to the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act
(as described in the "NOI for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity" section
earlier in this chapter). The key component of EPA and state-issued CGPs is the development
and implementation of a construction SWPPP. For sites with multiple operators, EPA
encourages but does not require these operators to develop one comprehensive SWPPP with
specific requirements for each operator identified. Other requirements include conducting
regular inspections and reporting releases of reportable quantities of hazardous substances.
Operators may also be required to comply with local, state, or tribal construction runoff control
programs as specified in the permit. To discontinue permit coverage, an operator of a
construction activity must complete and submit to the appropriate NPDES permitting authority
an NOT form upon satisfying the appropriate permit termination conditions described in the
CGP. An example NOT form can be found in Appendix T.
Chapter 11 - Page 256
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NOIs must be submitted in the timeframe specified in the applicable general permit. For new
projects and existing projects transferring to new operators covered under EPA's CGP, the
deadline to submit an NOI is at least 14 days prior to commencement of construction.
Electronic filing of NOI's (eNOI) is now available for operators where EPA is the permitting
authority at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-construction-
activities#ereporting. The new project becomes covered under the permit 14 days after EPA
acknowledges the receipt of the NOI.
EPA regulations allow permitting authorities to authorize discharges under a general permit for
small construction sites without them submitting an NOI, when the permitting authority finds
that NOIs would be inappropriate. While EPA does not currently implement this allowance,
some states have opted to permit small construction that way (i.e., no NOI required to be
covered under the state CGP). A brochure on stormwater pollution prevention for small
construction sites can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
12/documents/cgp_sma ll_lot_swppp_brochure-f inal_0.pdf.
Individual Permit
In the event that an operator of a small or large construction activity chooses to apply for an
individual permit, or if the NPDES permitting authority requires the operator to submit an
individual NPDES permit application (based on information such as water quality data), or if any
of the discharges of stormwater associated with small construction activity identified in 40 CFR
122.26(b)(15) are not authorized by the general permit, the operator is subject to the individual
application requirements found at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(l)(ii).
Establishing Eligibility for Coverage under EPA's CGP
Endangered Species Act
EPA's CGP requires the construction site operator to certify their eligibility regarding the
protection of threatened and endangered ("listed") species and their critical habitat. Permittees
must meet the eligibility criteria that EPA developed in consultation under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (together, the Services). This certification is unique to EPA's NOI and is not a
requirement of most NPDES-delegated states' NOIs. Permittees must follow the procedures in
Appendix D of the 2017 CGP and should consult with the state or regional services offices when
appropriate. Documentation supporting eligibility under this provision must be included in the
facility's SWPPP.
NOIs require certification that the construction activity will not jeopardize endangered or
threatened species protected under the ESA. As mentioned above, this NPDES certification
requirement is unique to EPA's NOI. All dischargers applying for coverage must include in the
application information on the NOI form: 1) whether listed species are in proximity to the
stormwater or allowable non-stormwater discharges or discharge-related activity; 2) under
which option of the CGP they claim eligibility for permit coverage, and 3) certification that their
stormwater and allowable non-stormwater discharges and discharge related activities are not
likely to jeopardize listed species, or are otherwise eligible for coverage due to a previous
authorization under the ESA. The permittee should consult with applicable state or regional U.S.
Chapter 11 - Page 257
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service offices to make these
determinations of eligibility.
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the effects
of federal undertakings, including EPA-issued NPDES general permits. Where operators install
or modify control measures that involve subsurface disturbance, the area of potential effect
(APE) for the activities performed to comply with the permit, for historic preservation purposes,
is limited to the location and depth of the earth disturbance associated with the installation or
modification of the stormwater control measures. NHPA eligibility procedures that permittees
are required to follow are included in Appendix E of the 2017 CGP. Operators need only
consider the APE when doing the historic properties screening procedures to determine their
eligibility criteria in Appendix E. An electronic listing of the "National Register of Historic
Places," as maintained by the National Park Service, can be accessed at http://www.nps.gov.
Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control (UIC) Requirements for Certain Subsurface
Stormwater Controls
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that certain provisions be followed for the use of
underground injection wells as a form of subsurface stormwater control. Such controls would
generally be considered Class V UIC wells: Infiltration trenches (if stormwater is directed to any
bored, drilled, driven shaft or dug hole that is deeper than its widest surface dimension, or has
a subsurface fluid distribution system); Commercially manufactured pre-cast or pre-built
proprietary subsurface detention vaults, chambers, or other devices designed to capture and
infiltrate stormwater flow; and Drywells, seepage pits, or improved sinkholes (if stormwater is
directed to any bored, drilled, driven shaft or dug hole that is deeper than its widest surface
dimension, or has a subsurface fluid distribution system). The SWPPP must document any
contact with the applicable state agency or EPA Regional Office responsible for implementing
the requirements for underground injection wells in the Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 144-147.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
The SWPPP as required by the EPA or state-issued CGP must be prepared prior to submission of
the NOI. The construction project should follow the provisions of the SWPPP throughout the
construction period, as the SWPPP represents what the operator plans to do to meet the
effluent limits in the permit. Under EPA's 2017 CGP, the SWPPP must be signed by a responsible
official such as the president, vice president, or general partner. The construction facility must
keep the SWPPP on-site throughout the entire construction period or at an easily accessible
location so that it can be made available at the time of an on-site inspection or upon request by
EPA. The SWPPP must be submitted for review under EPA's CGP only when requested by EPA,
although some permitting authorities may require submission of the SWPPP along with the
NOI.
For large or complex construction sites the inspector may want to request a copy of the SWPPP
prior to inspection to ensure familiarity with the site during the inspection. Otherwise, the
Chapter 11 - Page 258
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
inspector should obtain a copy of and review the SWPPP or at least parts of the SWPPP during
the inspection. At a minimum, the inspector should review the site map prior to conducting the
field inspection to understand the site and the existing/planned stormwater controls.
Depending on the time available for the inspection and the size of the SWPPP, the inspector
may complete the remaining portion of the SWPPP review when he or she returns to the office.
In reviewing the SWPPP, the inspector should evaluate if it contains all the required elements
specified in the permit (either the most current EPA CGP, the state CGP in NPDES-authorized
states, or an individual permit issued for the site). The EPA CGP requires that the SWPPP
identify potential sources of pollution that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of
stormwater discharges, and describe and ensure implementation of practices that the operator
will use to reduce pollutants in its stormwater discharges. Reviewing the SWPPP
implementation is covered in the next section. The following items, which are included in the
EPA 2017 CGP, are typically required in all SWPPPs, although the inspector should always refer
to the specific permit applicable to a particular construction site:
• Identification of the stormwater team.
• A description of the nature of the construction activity.
• Emergency-related projects.
• Identification of other site operators.
• A sequence (schedule) of major construction activity.
• A site map indicating construction area boundaries, locations of all surface waters,
natural buffers, federally-listed critical habitat for endangered or threatened species,
topography of site, existing vegetative cover, storm drain inlets, drainage patterns,
discharge locations, potential pollutant-generating activities, stormwater control
measures, and chemical use and storage areas.
• Construction site pollutants.
• Non-stormwater discharges.
• Buffer documentation.
• Description of stormwater control measures including the measures to be used, use of
treatment chemicals, and stabilization practices.
• Pollution prevention procedures including spill prevention and response and waste
management.
• Procedures for inspection, maintenance, and corrective action.
• Staff training.
• Documentation of compliance with other federal requirements.
• SWPPP certification.
• Post-authorization additions to the SWPPP including copies of the NOI,
acknowledgement letter, and the permit.
Typically, measures and controls should include the following:
Chapter 11 - Page 259
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Install erosion and sediment controls—The permittee is required to complete
installation of stormwater controls by the time each phase of earth-disturbance has
begun, unless infeasible, and to install these controls according to good engineering
practices. The permittee must also ensure that all erosion and sediment controls remain
in effective operating condition during permit coverage and are protected from
activities that would reduce their effectiveness.
• Provide natural buffers or equivalent sediment controls—The permittee is required to
ensure that any discharges to surface waters through the area between the disturbed
portions of the property and any surface waters located within 50 feet of the
construction site are treated by an area of undisturbed natural buffer and/or additional
erosion and sediment controls to achieve a reduction in sediment load equivalent to
that achieved by a 50-foot natural buffer. If it is infeasible for the construction site to
maintain a 50-foot natural buffer between earth disturbances and surface waters,
erosion and sediment controls may be used. In this case, the permittee must first
determine the estimated sediment removal efficiency of a 50-foot natural buffer for the
construction site. Appendix G of the CGP contains sediment removal efficiency tables,
which may be used to locate the sediment removal efficiencies of various buffer
vegetation. Once the removal efficiency of a 50-foot natural buffer is determined, then
the permittee should select stormwater controls that will provide an equivalent
sediment load reduction.
• Install perimeter controls—The permittee must install sediment controls along those
perimeter areas of the construction site that will receive stormwater from earth-
disturbing activities. Sediment must be removed before it has accumulated to one-half
of the above-ground height of any perimeter control.
• Minimize sediment track-out—The permittee must minimize the track-out of sediment
onto off-site streets, other paved areas, and sidewalks from vehicles exiting the
construction site.
• Control discharges from stockpiled sediment or soil—For any stockpiles or land clearing
debris composed, in whole or in part, of sediment or soil, the permittee is required to:
a) locate the piles outside of any natural buffers, b) protect from contact with
stormwater (including run-on) using a temporary perimeter sediment barrier, c) where
practicable, provide cover or appropriate temporary stabilization to avoid direct contact
with precipitation or to minimize sediment discharge, d) do not hose down or sweep soil
or sediment accumulated on pavement or other impervious surfaces into any
stormwater conveyance (unless connected to a sediment basin, sediment trap, or
similarly effective control), storm drain inlet, or surface water, and, e) unless infeasible,
contain and securely protect from wind.
• Minimize dust—To avoid pollutants from being discharged into surface waters, to the
extent feasible, the permittee must minimize the generation of dust through the
appropriate application of water or other dust suppression techniques.
• Minimize the disturbance of steep slopes.
Chapter 11 - Page 260
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Preserve topsoil.
• Minimize soil compaction—In areas of the construction site where final vegetative
stabilization will occur or where infiltration practices will be installed, the permittee
must either restrict vehicle/equipment use or use soil conditioning techniques.
• Protect storm drain inlets—The permittee, where applicable, must install inlet
protection measures that remove sediment from the discharge prior to entry into the
storm drain inlet. The permittee is required to clean, or remove and replace, the
protection measures as sediment accumulates, the filter becomes clogged, and/or
performance is compromised.
• Requirements applicable only to sites using these specific stormwater controls:
- Constructed stormwater conveyance channels—The permittee should design
stormwater conveyance channels to avoid unstabilized areas on the site and to
reduce erosion, unless infeasible.
- Sediment basins—The EPA CGP requires that when a temporary/permanent
sediment basin is installed, it must provide storage for either the calculated volume
of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet per acre drained.
- Treatment chemicals—Water treatment chemicals, such as polymers and
flocculants, may be used as a form of erosion and sediment control. However,
cationic treatment chemicals may not be used under the CGP unless the EPA office
authorizes coverage under this permit after appropriate controls and
implementation procedures are developed. The permittee should use conventional
erosion and sediment controls prior to and after the application of treatment
chemicals. Chemicals may only be applied where treated stormwater is directed to a
sediment control (e.g., sediment basin, perimeter control) prior to discharge.
Chemicals must be selected that are appropriately suited to the types of soils likely
to be exposed during construction and discharged to locations where chemicals will
be applied, and to the expected turbidity, pH, and flow rate of stormwater flowing
into the chemical treatment system or area. Treatment chemicals and chemical
treatment systems should be used in accordance with dosing specifications and
sediment removal design specifications provided by the provider/supplier of the
applicable chemicals, or document specific departures from these practices or
specifications and how they reflect good engineering practice.
- Dewatering practices—The permittee is prohibited from discharging ground water
or accumulated stormwater that is removed from excavations, trenches,
foundations, vaults, or other similar points of accumulation, unless such waters are
first effectively managed by appropriate controls.
• Stabilization requirements—Practices must be included for interim and permanent
stabilization for the site, including a schedule of when the practices will be
implemented. According to the EPA CGP, when construction activities temporarily or
Chapter 11 - Page 261
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
permanently cease on a portion of the site, stabilization measures must be initiated
immediately for erosion control.
• Pollution prevention requirements—The permittee is required to design, install, and
maintain effective pollution prevention measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants.
All pollution prevention controls installed must remain in effective operating condition
and be protected from activities that would reduce their effectiveness. Certain
discharges are prohibited, these include: wastewater from concrete washout, fuels, oils,
soaps, solvents, detergents, and toxic or hazardous substances. The following activities
require compliance with pollution prevention standards in accordance with CGP Part
2.3: fueling and maintenance of equipment or vehicles; washing of equipment and
vehicles; storage, handling, and disposal of construction materials, products, and
wastes; and, washing of applicators and containers used for paint, concrete, or other
materials.
• Emergency spill notification—Where a leak, spill, or other release containing a
hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or more than a reportable quantity
established under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302 occurs
during a 24-hour period, the permittee must notify the National Response Center (NRC).
• Fertilizer discharge restrictions—The permittee is required to minimize discharges of
fertilizers containing nitrogen or phosphorus.
The Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines require that sediment controls be
designed, installed and maintained to minimize the discharge of sediment from the site.
Therefore, certain types of sediment controls such as sediment basins must be adequately sized
to retain or detain the appropriate volume of stormwater runoff. The inspector should refer to
the particular site's NPDES stormwater permit for specific design requirements related to
capacity or volume, as well as any other design standards. For example, as noted above, EPA's
2017 CGP requires that sediment basins provide, at a minimum, storage for either the
calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet per acre drained.
To determine whether stormwater controls at a construction site have been designed and
installed with adequate capacity, the inspection should consider the following factors: the
expected amount, frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation; the nature of stormwater
runoff and run-on at the site, including factors such as expected flow from impervious surfaces,
slopes, and site drainage features; and, the range of soil particle sizes expected to be present
on the site. These factors all affect the nature and quantity of runoff from the construction site.
For instance, soils with a very small particle size (clay, silt) has a very low infiltration, meaning
the site will likely experience a higher quantity runoff and a higher sediment load in the runoff
compared to a site with higher infiltration (sandy soils). The inspector should consider these
factors to determine if the stormwater controls implemented at a construction site are
sufficient.
Appendix U, "Typical 'C' Coefficients," lists typical runoff coefficient values that may be used to
determine the typical infiltration and runoff a certain area (residential, parks, streets, etc.).
Additionally, the inspector may refer to Appendix V, "Rain Zones of the United States," to
Chapter 11 - Page 262
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
determine the typical amount of rainfall a region receives, as an aid in evaluating stormwater
control measure adequacy. Alternatively, the inspector may refer to EPA's National Stormwater
Calculator (SWC), a desktop application, to estimate the annual amount of rainwater and
frequency of runoff from a specific site anywhere in the United States. Estimates are based on
local soil conditions, land cover, and historic rainfall records. The stormwater calculator may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/national-stormwater-calculator.
The SWPPP must also specify the operator personnel who is responsible for inspecting the
construction site and the frequency of the inspections. The EPA 2017 CGP requires that the
operator inspect at least once every seven days regardless of rainfall, or at least every 14 days
and within 24 hours of each rainfall of 0.25 inches or more. To determine if a storm event of
0.25 inches or greater has occurred at the construction site, the permittee must either keep a
properly maintained rain gauge on-site, or obtain the storm event information from a weather
station that is representative of the construction site location. The EPA inspector should
determine the how the permittee monitors and records rainfall and if this method is
representative of the rainfall at the site and credible. One potential source of rainfall data that
the EPA inspector can access in preparation for an inspection is provided by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and can be found through the National
Climate Data Center's (NCDC's) online climate datasets. NCDC online climate datasets may be
found at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. The inspector should use appropriate rainfall
data, either the data maintained by the permittee or provided by another acceptable source, to
ensure that the permittee is in compliance with the required schedule for site inspections.
Additionally, if rainfall occurred during or prior to an inspection, these datasets can be used to
verify the amount of precipitation that has fallen. The NOAA rainfall worksheet, available in
Appendix W, may be used to document rainfall.
Some permits may allow reduced monitoring frequencies for portions of sites that have
achieved final stabilization (as defined by the applicable permit), or for sites that are in arid
(defined as less than 10 inches of rain per year in the EPA 2017 CGP) or semi-arid (defined as 10
to 20 inches of rain per year in the EPA 2017 CGP) areas. EPA's 2017 CGP requires that these
areas be inspected at least once a month. The inspector must prepare a report documenting
his/her findings on the conditions of the controls and stabilized areas. The inspector should
verify that documentation of the routine inspections is included in the SWPPP.
Some permits require an increase in inspection frequency for sites that discharge to a sediment
of nutrient-impaired water or to a water that is identified by the state, tribe, or EPA as Tier 2,
Tier 2.5, or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes (see EPA 2017 CGP Part 4.3). For these sites,
inspections should occur once every 7 calendar days and within 24 hours of a storm event of
0.25 inches or greater. Again, the inspector should verify that documentation of the routine
inspections is included in the SWPPP.
The worksheet provided in Appendix X, "NPDES Industrial Storm Water Investigation and Case
Development (Construction)," can be used to evaluate specific elements of the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan for construction activities.
Chapter 11 - Page 263
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION/IN THE FIELD
Are They Doing What the SWPPP Indicates?
When conducting the field inspection of a construction site, inspectors should note several
items:
• A current copy of the SWPPP must be kept at the site or at an easily accessible location
so that it can be made available at the time of an on-site inspection, or upon request by
EPA. Significant delays in producing the SWPPP or finding knowledgeable stormwater
personnel may indicate compliance problems.
• The opening conference with the owner/operator is extremely important. Often at
larger residential construction sites, there will be multiple builders working together as
co-permittees, each responsible for one or more aspects of SWPPP implementation. It is
important to identify the permittee and/or co-permittees and their respective
responsibilities under the permit.
• It is good practice to review the site map before conducting the inspection because if
the inspector does not know the site boundaries, it is difficult to identify and evaluate
the runoff potential. The inspector can download aerial photos prior to the inspection to
use along with the site map.
• The SWPPP should reflect current conditions and provide a record of past conditions.
The inspector should review the construction sequence and BMP sequence given in the
SWPPP and evaluate whether these have been met.
• The closing conference provides an opportunity to describe deficiencies found and
identify areas of concern (e.g., parts of a SWPPP missing, inspections not being done, silt
fence not installed or not installed correctly, discharge of sediment or other pollutants
to a storm drain). Given the transient nature of most construction sites, it is good
practice to share information with the site owner/operator as quickly as possible (e.g.,
prior to issuance of final inspection report) so that any environmental harm can be
minimized and corrections can be made prior to the next storm event.
In the field, the inspector should: verify that the SWPPP reflects current site conditions
including identification of potential pollutant sources and control measures; verify whether
structural control measures are properly installed, adequately maintained and in effective
operating condition; verify whether nonstructural control measures such as stabilization and
good housekeeping are being implemented as required by the SWPPP, are timely and are
adequate and appropriate; document all discharges of stormwater observed by the inspector as
well as evidence of previous discharges such as accumulation of sediment (whether off-site or
in waters, or on-site in gutters, on the street, within storm drains, etc.); and document any
evidence of the discharge of other pollutants such as concrete washout or paint.
The inspector should ensure that, if corrective action is needed, the permittee immediately
takes all reasonable steps necessary to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants until a
permanent solution is installed and made operational, including cleaning up any contaminated
surfaces so that the material will not discharge in subsequent storm events. Any corrective
Chapter 11 - Page 264
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
actions taken should be recorded and the documentation kept on-site with the SWPPP.
Additionally, the inspector should verify that the permittee modifies the SWPPP as necessary,
when a corrective action results in a change in the control measures implemented on-site.
EPA's 2017 CGP requires facilities to implement control measures and train employees on how
to carry out the provisions of the SWPPP. The inspector should evaluate any implementation
schedules developed by the facility for carrying out the SWPPP (e.g., dates for putting improved
housekeeping measures into practice; installation of structural controls). The inspector should
also determine whether appropriate individuals have been assigned to implement the specific
aspects of the SWPPP, and whether these individuals are aware of the implications of that
designation. At a minimum, the appropriate personnel must be trained to understand: the
location of all stormwater controls on the site, how they are maintained; the proper procedures
to follow with respect to the permit's pollution prevention requirements; and, when and how
to conduct inspections, record applicable findings, and take corrective actions.
Examples of deficiencies an inspector may observe during a construction site inspection
include:
• Silt fences that are improperly located or installed (e.g., bottom not buried), falling over,
containing an excessive amount of accumulated sediment (e.g., EPA's 2012 requires that
sediment be removed before it has accumulated to over one-half of the above-ground
height of the perimeter control), or ripped so that the fence is not functioning properly.
• Poor housekeeping such as oil stains on soil; overturned drums; uncovered pails
containing liquids; cluttered equipment storage with leaking fluids; fuel tanks with no
containment; litter and debris scattered around the site; streets in need of sweeping.
• Storm drain inlet protection that is missing or ineffective such as inlets covered with
sediment/debris; ruptured gravel bags with loss of gravel into drain; sediment
accumulation resulting in clogging of the filter or otherwise compromising performance;
improperly installed inlet protection that leaves gaps.
• Track-out controls that are missing or ineffective such as track-out pads filled with soil
or not constructed to the length specified in the SWPPP; dirt being tracked out onto the
road.
• Sediment not removed from sediment basins or sediment traps before accumulating to
more than V* the design capacity.
• Lack of proper recordkeeping.
Appendix Y, "Construction Source Control BMP Questions," contains a worksheet that the
inspector can use to aid in the evaluation of stormwater control measures. Site-specific control
measures for construction activities are summarized in Table 11-6.
Chapter 11 - Page 265
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 11-6. Site-Specific Construction Stormwater Control Measures
Stabilization Practices: Stabilization, which entails protecting bare earth, reduces erosion potential in
four ways: 1) by shielding the soil surface from direct erosive impact of raindrops, 2) by improving the
soil's water storage porosity and capacity, 3) by slowing the runoff and allowing the sediment to drop
out or deposit; and 4) by physically holding the soil in place with plant roots. Vegetative (e.g., grasses,
trees, or shrubs) covers are the most common type of stabilization.
Stabilization practices include temporary seeding, mulching, geotextiles, chemical stabilization,
permanent seeding and planting, buffer zones, preservation of natural vegetation, sod stabilization,
stream bank stabilization, soil retaining measures, and dust control.
Structural Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Structural erosion and sediment controls divert
stormwater flows away from exposed areas, convey runoff to a sediment basin or similarly effective
control, capture sediment or otherwise prevent sediments from moving off-site, and reduce the
erosive forces of runoff waters.
Structural erosion and sediment control practices include, but are not limited to, earth dikes, drainage
swales, interceptor dikes and swales, temporary stream crossing, temporary storm drain diversion,
pipe slope drains, subsurface drains, silt fence, gravel or stone filter berm, storm drain inlet
protection, sediment trap, temporary and permanent sediment basins, outlet protection, check
dams, surface roughening, and gradient terraces.
D. STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM MUNICIPAL SEPARATE
STORM SEWER SYSTEMS
APPLICABILITY (WHO IS COVERED)
Stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) were initially
regulated under the Phase I stormwater regulations, which were finalized in 1990. There is a
two-part stormwater permit application process for medium (serving a population of 100,000
or more, but fewer than 250,000) and large (serving a population of more than 250,000) MS4s
described in 40 CFR 122.26(d), pursuant to sections 402(p)(2)(C)-(D) of the CWA. The
regulations define medium and large MS4s as those in the 220 cities listed in Appendix F and
Appendix G or in the counties listed in Appendix H and Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 122. An MS4
may also be designated as a Phase I MS4 on a case-by-case basis (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4)(iii)
and 122.26(b)(7)(iii)). In addition to the counties and cities listed in Appendices F - I, other
smaller interrelated entities may be regulated under the Phase 1 program such as smaller
municipalities, sewer districts or flood control districts that are physically connected to a Phase
I MS4. In some states, only the urbanized portions of the state highway systems are regulated,
but other states have issued state-wide permits to their Departments of Transportation (DOTs).
To date, a total of approximately 1,000 entities (cities, counties, flood control districts etc.) are
covered under 270 Phase I permits nationwide. The universe of Phase I MS4s was established
under the 1990 Phase I stormwater regulations. Additional MS4 entities cannot be added to the
Phase 1 universe but may be regulated under the Phase II regulations discussed below.
Chapter 11 - Page 266
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The Phase II Final Rule, which was finalized in 1999, requires NPDES permit coverage for
stormwater discharges from certain small MS4s. Only a select subset of small MS4s, referred to
as "regulated small MS4s," require a NPDES stormwater permit. Small MS4s are defined as any
MS4 that is not a medium or large MS4 covered by Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program.
Regulated small MS4s are small MS4s located in "urbanized areas" (UAs) as defined by the
Bureau of the Census and as determined by the latest Decennial Census, and those small MS4s
located outside of a UA that are designated by NPDES permitting authorities. Small MS4s
include publicly owned or operated separate storm sewer systems that are similar to such
systems within municipalities, such as military bases, large hospital or prison complexes, and
highways (40 CFR 122.26(b)(16)(iii)). A small MS4 can be designated by the permitting authority
as a regulated small MS4 in one of two ways. One, the small MS4 located outside of a UA is
designated as a regulated small MS4 by the NPDES permitting authority because its discharges
cause, or have the potential to cause, an adverse impact on water quality. Two, the small MS4
located outside of a UA contributes substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically
interconnected MS4 regulated by the NPDES stormwater program. Note: In authorized states,
the NPDES permitting authority was required to designate small MS4s meeting the designation
criteria by December 9, 2002, or by December 8, 2004, if a watershed plan is in place (40 CFR
123.35(b)).
Waivers
Permitting authorities may waive permit coverage requirements for small MS4s otherwise
regulated under the rule if the MS4s meet the necessary criteria set forth in the regulations.
Waiver options are available to operators of small MS4s if discharges do not cause, or have the
potential to cause water quality impairment. The state permitting authority is required to
periodically review any waivers granted to MS4 operators to determine whether any
information required for granting the waiver has changed. At a minimum, such a review needs
to be conducted once every five years.
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM MUNICIPAL SEPARATE
STORM SEWER SYSTEMS
Permits are required for discharges from regulated large, medium, and small municipal
separate storm sewer systems. The permitting authority may also designate stormwater
discharges via its residual designation authority. The permitting authority may issue one
system-wide permit covering all discharges from multiple permittees within an interrelated
municipal separate storm sewer system or issue individual permits to each MS4 on a
jurisdictional basis.
Unlike the Phase I MS4 program that primarily utilizes individual permits, the Phase II approach
allows operators of regulated small MS4s to choose from as many as three permitting options:
1) general permits (if available), 2) individual permits, or 3) modification of an existing Phase I
Individual Permit (Co-Permittee Option). It must be noted that the NPDES permitting authority
reserves the authority to determine which options are available to the regulated small MS4s.
Where a general permit is available, operators of regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas
seeking coverage under the general permit must submit their NOIs within 90 days of permit
Chapter 11 - Page 267
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
issuance. Operators of small MS4s that have been designated by the permitting authority must
submit their permit applications within 180 days of notice. Small MS4s must develop and fully
implement an MS4 stormwater management program within five years of initial permit
issuance.
In contrast to the Phase I MS4 program, the Phase II MS4 program has been designed
specifically to accommodate a general permit approach. General permits prescribe one set of
requirements for all permittees, though general permits can also include some specific
requirements for specific permittees covered by the permit. General permits are drafted by the
NPDES permitting authority, then published for public comment before being finalized and
issued. A regulated small MS4 operator seeking coverage under a general permit must submit
an NOI. The NOI fields are determined by the permitting authority, but generally ask the
operator to describe its stormwater management program, including stormwater control
measures and measurable goals. The MS4 owner/operator develops an individualized
stormwater management program (SWMP) in accordance with the requirements of the permit
that addresses the characteristics and needs of its system, subject to review by the permitting
authority. Permittees also can choose to share responsibilities for meeting the Phase II program
requirements, as provided in 40 CFR 122.35 and further explained below. Unless the permit
specifies that another governmental entity is responsible to carry out one or more of the permit
requirements, the permittee remains legally responsible for compliance with the permit.
As stated above, individual permits are mostly used for Phase I medium and large MS4s, while
general permits are more common for Phase II program implementation. Individual permits
prescribe a set of requirements for a permittee or a group of co-permittees. Individual permits
require the submission of a permit application, while an NOI submitted for coverage under a
general permit is usually less extensive. Once an application for an individual permit is received,
the permit is drafted by the NPDES permitting authority, then published for public comment
before being finalized and issued. The Phase II rule allows a regulated small MS4 to apply for an
individual permit under either the Phase II MS4 program (see 40 CFR 122.34) or the Phase I
MS4 program (see 40 CFR 122.26(d)). The NPDES permitting authority may allow more than one
regulated entity to apply for one individual permit (i.e., co-permittees), as it may also do for
Phase I MS4s.
Under the Phase II Rule, there are two permitting options tailored to minimize duplication of
effort among co-permittees. These can be incorporated into both a general permit and an
individual permit by the NPDES permitting authority. First, as mentioned above, under 40 CFR
122.35, the permitting authority can recognize in the permit that another governmental entity
or the permitting authority itself is responsible under a NPDES permit for implementing any or
all minimum measures. Responsibility for implementation of the measure(s) would rest with
the other governmental entity, thereby relieving the permittee of its responsibility to
implement that measure(s). Second, the permittee may rely on another entity to satisfy the
permittee's obligations to implement one or more of the minimum control measures if the
other entity agrees to implement the control measures on the permittee's behalf and in fact
implements the requirement(s).
Chapter 11 - Page 268
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The operator of a regulated small MS4 could participate as a limited co-permittee in a
neighboring Phase I MS4's stormwater management program by seeking a modification of the
existing Phase I individual permit instead of seeking individual permit coverage under the Phase
II rule. A list of Phase I medium and large MS4s can be obtained from the EPA Office of
Wastewater Management (OWM), the EPA Region, or downloaded from the OWM web site at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes. The MS4 must follow Phase I permit application requirements
(with some exclusions).
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP) DEVELOPMENT
Phase IMS4 SWMPs: Comprises Part of the Permit Application
Developing and implementing a stormwater management program (SWMP) is a key
requirement of an MS4 permit. While existing structural and non-structural control measures
for addressing discharges from MS4s must be described in Part 1 of the permit application,
Part 2 of the application must set forth the proposed SWMP in accordance with 40 CFR
122.26(d)(2)(iv).
The discussion that follows provides a general description of SWMP requirements for MS4s.
The inspector must review the MS4's permit for specific considerations. Each MS4 covered by a
permit must develop a SWMP in accordance with the permit, tailored to system-specific
conditions and designed to reduce the amount of pollutants in stormwater discharges from the
system to the maximum extent practicable. The permitting authority has the right to review
and request changes in the SWMP. Summaries of necessary components of these programs for
MS4s are provided below for both large- and medium-size MS4s.
The SWMP must describe priorities for implementing controls and should be based on the
following requirements:
1. Structural and source control measures to be implemented during the life of the permit
to reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial and residential areas that are
discharged from the MS4s. The SWMP must include an estimate of the expected
reduction of pollutant loads and a proposed schedule for implementing such controls.
At a minimum, the description in the SWMP must include:
• Maintenance activities and a maintenance schedule for structural controls. The
description should include priorities and procedures for inspections.
• Planning procedures, including a comprehensive master plan, to develop,
implement, and enforce controls to reduce discharges from areas of new
development and significant redevelopment after construction is complete.
• Practices for operating and maintaining public streets, roads, highways etc., and
procedures for reducing the impact on receiving waters of discharges from MS4s,
including pollutants discharged as a result of deicing activities.
• Procedures to ensure that flood management projects assess the impacts on the
water quality of receiving water bodies and that existing structural flood control
Chapter 11 - Page 269
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
devices have been evaluated to determine if retrofitting is feasible for additional
pollutant removal.
• Program to monitor pollutants in runoff from operating or closed municipal landfills
or other treatment, storage, or disposal facilities for municipal waste, that identifies
priorities and procedures for inspections and establishing and implementing control
measures for such discharges.
• Program to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, pollutants in discharges
from the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. This may include
educational activities, permits, certifications, and other measures for commercial
applicators and distributors, and controls for application in public right-of-way and
at municipal facilities.
2. A program to detect and remove (or to require the discharger to the MS4 to obtain a
separate NPDES permit for) illicit discharges and improper disposal into the MS4, and to
prevent such discharges. At a minimum, the proposed program must include
descriptions of:
• Inspection procedures, to implement and enforce an ordinance, order, or similar
means to prevent illicit discharges to the MS4 (note: there is a category of non-
stormwater discharges or flows that shall be addressed where such discharges are
identified by the owner/operator as sources of pollutants to waters of the United
States (see 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(l)).
• Procedures to conduct ongoing field screening activities during the life of the permit.
• Procedures to be followed to investigate where field screening or other information
indicate a reasonable potential of illicit discharges or other sources of
non-stormwater.9
• Procedures to prevent, contain, and respond to spills that may discharge into the
MS4.
• Program to promote, publicize, and facilitate public reporting of the presence of
illicit discharges or water quality impacts associated with discharges from MS4s.
• Educational activities, public information activities, and other appropriate activities
to facilitate the proper management and disposal of used oil and toxic materials.
9 For example, EPA has developed a draft New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol applicable to inspectors
in Region 1. This protocol is appropriate under circumstances where the inspector suspects bacterial
contamination. The protocol relies primarily on visual observations and the use of field test kits and portable
instrumentation during dry and wet weather to complete a bacterial screening level investigation of stormwater
outfall discharges or flows within the drainage system, in conjunction with sampling for pharmaceuticals and
cosmetic to show a link with untreated illicit sewage discharges. The protocol can be found at:
https://www3.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/ma/2014Appendixl.pdf
Chapter 11 - Page 270
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Controls to limit infiltration of seepage from municipal sanitary sewers to MS4s
where necessary.
3. Program to monitor and control pollutants in stormwater discharges to municipal
systems from municipal landfills; hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recovery
facilities; industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of SARA Title III; and
industrial facilities that the municipal permit applicant determines are contributing a
substantial pollutant loading to the MS4s. The program must include:
• Priorities and procedures for inspections and establishing and implementing control
measures for such discharges.
• Monitoring program for stormwater discharges associated with industrial facilities
identified above, to be implemented during the term of the permit, including the
submission of quantitative data on constituents identified in 40 CFR
122.26(d)(2)(iv)(C)(2).
4. Program to implement and maintain structural and non-structural best management
practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from construction sites to the MS4.
This program must include descriptions of:
• Procedures for site planning that incorporate consideration of potential water
quality impacts.
• Requirements for non-structural and structural best management practices.
• Procedures for identifying priorities for inspecting sites and enforcing control
measures that consider the nature of the construction activity, the topography, and
the characteristics of soils and receiving water quality.
• Appropriate educational and training measures for construction site operators.
Phase IIMS4 SWMP: Comprises Part of the Permit Application or Notice of Intent
The Phase II regulations require regulated small MS4s to develop SWMPs based on similar, but
not identical, requirements as apply to medium/large MS4s. Small MS4 permits require at a
minimum that the permittee develop, implement, and enforce a SWMP designed to reduce the
discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable, to protect water
quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. The
Phase II requirements for SWMPs include the six minimum control measures described below:
1. Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts that distribute educational materials
to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of
stormwater discharges on water bodies and the steps that the public can take to reduce
pollutants in stormwater runoff.
2. Public involvement/participation on stormwater controls, at a minimum, complying with
state, tribal and local public notice requirements.
Chapter 11 - Page 271
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination program that includes:
• A storm sewer system map, showing the location of all outfalls and the names and
location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those
outfalls.
• An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism (to the extent allowable under state
law), that effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewer
system.
• Appropriate enforcement procedures and actions.
• A plan to detect and address non-stormwater discharges, including illegal dumping,
to the system.
• Outreach that informs public employees, businesses, and the general public of
hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste.
4. Construction site stormwater runoff control program to reduce pollutants in any
stormwater runoff to your small MS4 from construction activities that result in a land
disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre (including construction activity disturbing
less than one acre that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that would
disturb one acre or more). The program must include the development and implementation
of, at a minimum:
• An ordinance or other regulatory mechanism (to the extent allowable under state
law) to require erosion and sediment controls, as well as sanctions to ensure
compliance.
• Requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and
sediment control best management practices.
• Requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as discarded
building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at
the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality.
• Procedures for site plan review that incorporate consideration of potential water
quality impacts.
• Procedures for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public.
• Procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures.
5. Post-construction stormwater management program in new development and
redevelopment for projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including
projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale,
that discharge into the MS4. The controls must include strategies that include a
combination of structural and/or non-structural best management practices (BMPs)
appropriate for the community; use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address
Chapter 11 - Page 272
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
post-construction runoff from new development and redevelopment projects to the extent
allowable under state, tribal or local law; and ensure adequate long-term operation and
maintenance of control measures.
6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations that includes a training
component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from
municipal operations. Your program must include employee training to prevent and reduce
stormwater pollution from activities such as park and open space maintenance, fleet and
building maintenance, new construction and land disturbances, and stormwater system
maintenance.
As part of the small MS4 NOI or individual permit application, the MS4 is required to identify
the BMPs that will be implemented for each of the six minimum control measures listed above.
In addition, the NOI or application must identify the measurable goals for each of the BMPs,
including, as appropriate, the months and years in which the MS4 will take the required actions,
including interim milestones, the frequency of the action, and the person or persons
responsible for implementing or coordinating the SWMP.
SWMP IMPLEMENTATION/IN THE FIELD
The inspector should verify that the SWMP is being implemented as appropriate to meet the
current circumstances in the municipality. Implementation of management programs requires
the permittee to implement a variety of control measures, programs, and procedures that
includes training of various individuals on how to carry out the goals of the program. The
inspector should evaluate any implementation schedules specified in the permit or developed
by the municipality for carrying out the program and determine whether appropriate
individuals have been assigned to implement the specific aspects of the program and if these
individuals are aware of the requirements of that designation. The inspector should evaluate
the municipality's inspection and enforcement program for industrial facilities and construction
sites. In addition, the inspector should verify whether the municipality's monitoring program
and dry weather screening program is being implemented according to the permit schedule. If
the program calls for the installation or maintenance of structural controls, the inspector
should verify that the controls are in place and in good working order or that the facility is on
an appropriate schedule for construction of the structural control measures. The inspector
should ensure that the permittee is minimizing the discharge of pollutants in stormwater
runoff. The inspector should document stormwater discharges and any dry weather discharges
observed during the inspection, taking photographs as necessary to record the observation.
The inspection should consist of "in-office" and "in-field" activities. The purpose of the
inspection is to evaluate the MS4's implementation of its permit and SWMP. In-office activities
should include staff interviews and records review. Records review should be tailored to the
MS4's permit and SWMP and can include review of annual reports, training materials, standard
operating procedures for inspections and enforcement, inspection reports, and databases.
Some of these records may be reviewed prior to or after the inspection. In-field activities
should also be tailored to the MS4's permit and SWMP and can include visits to municipal
facilities and yards, industrial facilities, municipal and private construction sites, and municipal
Chapter 11 - Page 273
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
and private post-construction BMPs, as well as field screening. With the exception of municipal
sites, the inspector should evaluate the effectiveness of the MS4 inspector, rather than leading
the inspection during field activities. The inspector may refer to EPA's MS4 Program Evaluation
Guidance (EPA, 2007) and EPA Region 3 Factsheet on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Municipal
Stormwater Programs (EPA, 2008) for additional information on evaluating stormwater
programs.
E. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on stormwater.
American Petroleum Institute (API). (1989). Suggested Procedure for Development of Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. 2nd Edition. American Petroleum Institute
Bulletin D16.
American Public Works Association (APWA). (1989). Urban Storm Water Management, Special
Report No. 49. APWA Research Foundation.
Arapahoe County. (1988). Erosion Control Standards. Prepared by Kiowa Engineering
Corporation.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (1990). Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program
Manual. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation.
Commonwealth of Virginia. (1980). Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. 2nd
Edition. Virginia Department of Conservation and Historical Preservation, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation.
County of Fairfax. (1990 and 1987 Editions). "Check List for Erosion and Sediment Control
Fairfax County, Virginia."
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). (1987). Controlling Urban Runoff:
A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Department of Environmental
Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
National Research Council. (2008). Urban Stormwater Management in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press.
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. (1987). BMP Handbook for the Occoquan
Watershed. Prepared for Occoquan Basin Nonpoint Pollution Management Program.
Salt Institute. (1987). The Salt Storage Handbook, A Practical Guide for Storing and Handling
Deicing Salt. Alexandria, Virginia.
Chapter 11 - Page 274
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. (No Date). Automotive-Related
Industries, BMPs for Industrial Sanitary Sewer Discharges and Storm Water Pollution
Control.
State of Maryland. (1983). Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil and Erosion and
Sediment Control. Maryland Water Resources Administration, Soil Conservation Service, and
State Soil Conservation Committee.
State of North Carolina. (1988). Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, and Agricultural Extension Service.
State of Wisconsin. (1990). Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management,
Nonpoint Source and Land Management Section.
Thron, H. and Rogashewski, O.J. (1982). "Useful Tools for Cleaning Up." Hazardous Material &
Spills Conference.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1973). Process, Procedure, and Methods to Control
Pollution Resulting from All Construction Activity. EPA Office of Air and Water Programs,
PB-257-318.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance
Document. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, prepared by
Hydroscience, Inc. EPA 600/9-79-0451.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1987). Draft Report on Best Management Practices for
the Control of Storm Water from Urbanized Areas. Science Applications International
Corporation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1988). Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989). Pollution Prevention in Printing and Allied
Industries: Saving Money Through Pollution Prevention. Office of Research and
Development, Pollution Prevention Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b). Draft Sediment and Erosion Control, An
Inventory of Current Practices. EPA Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, prepared by
Kamber Engineering. W-278.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991a). Draft - A Current Assessment of Urban Best
Management Practices. Techniques for Reducing Non-point Source Pollution in the Coastal
Zone. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, prepared by Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
Chapter 11 - Page 275
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991b). Draft Construction Site Storm Water Discharge
Control, An Inventory of Current Practices. EPA Office of Water Enforcement and Permits,
prepared by Kamber Engineering.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991c). Guidance Manual for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity. EPA-505/8-91-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991d). Guidance Manual for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Water Systems.
EPA-505/8-91-003A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991e). Staff Analysis, Storm Water Section.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992b). Pollution Prevention Training Opportunities in
1992. EPA/560/8-92-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992c). Storm Water Management for Industrial
Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices.
EPA-832-R-92-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (19926). Storm Water Management for Construction
Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices.
EPA-832-R-92-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992e). Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document.
EPA 833-B-92-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993a). Investigation of Inappropriate Pollutant Entries
into Storm Drainage Systems, A User's Guide. EPA/600/R-92/238.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993b). NPDES Storm Water Program Question and
Answer Document: Volume II. Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Permits
Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993c). Guidance Manual for Developing Best
Management Practices (BMP). EPA 833-B-93-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Checklist for No-Exposure certification for NPDES
Stormwater Permitting.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Guidance Manual for Implementing Storm Water
Management Programs - Volume I - Planning and Administration. EPA 833-B-00-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999a). Guidance Manual for the Monitoring and
Reporting Requirements of the NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit. EPA
833-B-99-001.
Chapter 11 - Page 276
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999b). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet Internal
Reporting. EPA 832-F-99-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999c). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet Materials
Inventory. EPA 832-F-99-021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999d). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet
Non-Storm Water Discharges. EPA 832-F-99-022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999e). Storm Water O&M Fact Sheet Preventative
Maintenance. EPA 832-F-99-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999f). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet Record
Keeping. EPA 832-F-99-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999g). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet Spill
Prevention Planning. EPA 832-F-99-071.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999h). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet Storm
Water Contamination Assessment. EPA 832-F-99-024.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999i). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet Dust
Control. EPA 832-F-99-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999j). Storm Water Management Fact Sheet
Coverings. EPA 832-F-99-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999k). Storm Water O&M Fact Sheet Catch Basin
Cleaning. EPA 832-F-99-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (19991). Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet
Bioretention. EPA 832-F-99-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999m). Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet Flow
Diversion. EPA 832-F-99-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999n). Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet
Hydrodynamic Separators. EPA 832-F-99-017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005a). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - An Overview.
EPA 833-F-00-001. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Construction
Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833-F-00-008. Revised December 2005.
Chapter 11 - Page 111
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005c). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Illicit
Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833-F-00-007. Revised
December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005d). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Low Rainfall
Erosivity Waiver. EPA 833-F-00-014. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005e). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Permitting
and Reporting: The Process and Requirements. EPA 833-F-00-011. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005f). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Pollution
Prevention/Good Housekeeping Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833-F-00-010. Revised
December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005g). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Post
Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure. EPA 833-F-00-009. Revised
December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005h). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Public
Participation/Involvement Minimum Control Measures. EPA 833-F-00-006. Revised
December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005i). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Small
Construction Program Overview. EPA 833-F-00-013. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005j). Storm Water Phase II - Compliance Assistance
Guide. EPA 833-R-00-002. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005k). Guidance Manual for Conditional Exclusion
from Storm Water Permitting Based On No Exposure of Industrial Activities to Storm Water.
EPA 833-B-00-001. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (20051.) Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Small MS4
Storm Water Program Overview. EPA 833-F-00-002. Revised December 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). MS4 Program Evaluation Guidance. EPA 833-R-
07-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Municipal
Stormwater Programs. EPA 833-F-07-010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Industrial Stormwater Monitoring and Sampling
Guide. EPA 832-B-09-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). Storm Water Phase II Final Rule - Conditional
No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity. EPA 833-F-00-015. Revised March 2012.
Chapter 11 - Page 278
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). Draft EPA New England Bacterial Source
Tracking Protocol.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012c). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014a). Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Stormwater Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements
Based on those WLAs. EPA Memorandum. Revised November 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014b). Post-Construction Performance Standards &
Water Quality-Based Requirements. EPA 833-R-14-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (No Date). "Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) Section 6217." Available at: https://www.epa.gov/nps/coastal-zone-
act-reauthorization-amendments-czara-section-6217
Washington State Department of Ecology. (1991). Standards for Storm Water Management for
the Puget Sound Basin. Chapter 173-275 WAC. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Washington State Department of Ecology. (1992). Draft Storm Water Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of Ecology.
REGULATIONS/NOTICES
Federal Register (55 FR 47990). November 16, 1990. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit Application Requirements for Storm Water Discharges - Final Rule.
Federal Register (56 FR 40948). August 16,1991. NPDES General Permits and Reporting
Requirements for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity-Proposed
Rule.
Federal Register (57 FR 11394). April 2, 1992. Application Deadlines, General Permit
Requirements and Reporting Requirements-Final Rule.
Federal Register (57 FR 41236). September 9, 1992. Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Associated with Industrial Activity; Notice.
Federal Register (57 FR 44438). September 25, 1992. Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Associated with Industrial Activity; Notice.
Federal Register (57 FR 41344). September 9, 1992. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, Request for Comment on Alternative Approaches for Phase II Storm Water
Program; Proposed Rule.
Chapter 11 - Page 279
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Federal Register (57 FR 60444). December 18, 1992. Permit Issuance and Permit Compliance
Deadlines for Phase I Discharges; Final Rule.
Federal Register (64 FR 68721). December 8, 1999. NPDES Regulations for Revision of the Water
Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges; Final Rule.
Federal Register (77 FR 47065). August 7, 2012. Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities;
Notice.
Federal Register (80 FR 34403). June 16, 2015. Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities;
Notice.
Chapter 11 - Page 280
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 12 -
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Contents
A. Background and History of the CSO Policy 282
B. CSO Inspection Procedures 285
Preparation 285
On-site Records Review 287
Interviews 289
Facility Site Inspection 292
C. References 292
D. CSO Evaluation Checklist 294
List of Tables
Table 12-1. Nine Minimum CSO Controls 284
Table 12-2. Elements of the Long-Term CSO Control Plan 284
Table 12-3. CSO Records 288
Table 12-4. CSO Interview Questions 290
Related Websites
Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) home page: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) home page:
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/
Chapter 12 - Page 281
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CSO POLICY
In addition to materials in this chapter, Inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures
EPA's 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy (Volume 59 of the Federal Register
(FR) 18688 and 18689, April 19, 1994) defines a combined sewer system (CSS) as "a wastewater
collection system owned by a state or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)) which conveys sanitary wastewaters (domestic, commercial and industrial
wastewaters) and stormwater through a single-pipe system to a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) Treatment Plant (as defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 403.3(p))." During precipitation events (e.g., rainfall or snowmelt), the volume of sanitary
wastewater and stormwater runoff entering CSSs often exceeds the capacity of the treatment
works to treat it or the sewer system to store it until it can be treated. When this happens,
these systems are designed to overflow directly to surface waters. These overflows are
combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The CSO Control Policy defines a CSO as "the discharge from
a CSS at a point prior to the POTW Treatment Plant." Approximately 746 communities in the
United States have CSSs that together have 9,348 permitted CSO outfalls (i.e., the points from
which the discharge leaves the CSS) that are regulated by 859 NPDES permits.
Some CSOs occur infrequently; others, with every precipitation event. Because CSOs contain
raw sewage, industrial discharges, and urban stormwater, and contribute pathogens, solids,
debris, and toxic pollutants to receiving waters, CSOs can create serious public health and water
quality concerns. CSOs have caused or contributed to beach closures, shellfish bed closures,
contamination of drinking water supplies, and other environmental and public health problems.
The CSO Control Policy "represents a comprehensive national strategy to ensure that
municipalities, permitting authorities, water quality standards authorities and the public engage
in a comprehensive and coordinated planning effort to achieve cost-effective CSO controls that
ultimately meet appropriate health and environmental objectives and requirements" 59 FR
18688). Under the Policy, CSO communities were expected, through requirements in their
NPDES permit or enforceable mechanism, to:
• Implement nine minimum controls (NMC) that may be considered minimum best
available technology (BAT), best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), or
best professional judgement (BPJ) by the permitting authority. These NMC are measures
that can reduce CSO volumes and frequencies, and their water quality impacts, without
significant engineering studies or major construction. CSO communities were expected
to implement the NMC with appropriate documentation as soon as practicable but no
later than January 1, 1997.
• Develop and submit the long-term CSO control plan (LTCP) as soon as practicable, but
generally within two years after the date of the NPDES permit provision, CWA section
308 information request, or enforcement action requiring the permittee to develop the
plan. Implement the LTCP. Implementation of the individual CSO controls may be
phased based on the relative importance of adverse impacts of the CSOs on water
Chapter 12 - Page 282
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
quality standards and designated uses, priority projects identified in the long-term plan,
and on the permittee's financial capability.
Select CSO controls that include a post-construction water quality monitoring program
adequate to verify compliance with water quality standards and protection of designated uses
as well as to ascertain the effectiveness of CSO controls. Permitting and enforcement
authorities are expected to take enforcement action against dry weather CSO discharges, which
have always been prohibited by the NPDES program.
The CSO Policy outlines the NMCs and the minimum elements of an LTCP. Table 12-1 lists the
NMCs, while Table 12-2 lists the elements of the LTCP. The key elements to CSO control is to:
• Eliminate or relocate overflows that discharge to sensitive areas wherever physically
possible and economically achievable, and where not possible, provide treatment
necessary to meet WQS for full protection of existing and designated uses.
• Coordinate the review and appropriate revision of water quality standards and
implementation procedures on CSO-impacted waters with development of long-term
CSO control plans.
• Evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives for the CSO control plan that could achieve
the necessary level of control/treatment, and select the controls to be implemented
based on cost/performance evaluations.
• Develop an implementation schedule based on the relative importance of adverse
impacts on WQS and designated uses, priority projects identified in the long-term plan
LTCP, and on the permittee's financial capability.
• Maximize treatment of wet weather flows at the existing POTW treatment plant.
Since the CSO Control Policy was published, EPA has released guidance documents on the
following implementation areas: long-term control plans, the nine minimum controls, screening
and ranking, funding options, permit writing, financial capability and schedule development,
coordinating long-term planning with water quality standards reviews, monitoring and
modeling, and Post Construction Compliance Monitoring (see the "References" section and/or
the CSO website https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-csos for more
information).
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law (P.L.) 106-554, Congress
amended the Clean Water Act by adding section 402(q) to require, among other things, that all
permits, orders, and decrees issued to control CSOs, after enactment of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, shall conform to EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy. EPA and state NPDES
permitting authorities should refer to Section IV, Expectations for Permitting Authorities, of the
Policy (59 FR 16905-16996). This section of the policy presents the major elements that should
be in NPDES permits to implement the Policy and ensure protection of water quality.
Chapter 12 - Page 283
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
State and EPA NPDES permitting authorities continue to work with permittees to incorporate
CSO conditions into NPDES permits and through other enforceable mechanisms, such as
administrative or judicial orders.
Table 12-1. Nine Minimum CSO Controls
• Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and the CSOs.
• Maximum use of the collection system for storage.
• Review and modification of pretreatment requirements to ensure that CSO impacts are minimized.
• Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment.
• Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather.
• Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs.
• Establishment of pollution prevention programs.
• Public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO
impacts.
• Monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.
Table 12-2. Elements of the Long-Term CSO Control Plan
• Characterization, monitoring, and modeling of the Combined Sewer System
• Public Participation
• Consideration of Sensitive Areas
• Evaluation of Alternatives
• Cost/Performance Considerations
• Operational Plan
• Maximizing Treatment at the Existing POTW Treatment Plant
• Implementation Schedule
• Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program
Chapter 12 - Page 284
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B. CSO INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Each municipality's specific CSO requirements will be contained in a NPDES permit, an
enforcement order, a consent decree, or combination of these documents. CSO conditions will
be specific to that permittee. However, the inspection of one CSS may involve visits to more
than one municipality, depending on the configuration and possible shared responsibility for
the system. Moreover, a CSS may be subject to several NPDES permits and/or enforcement
orders or consent decrees. Before conducting the inspection, the inspector should determine
the authorities responsible for operation of the system and define the scope of the inspection.
The inspector will obtain information to determine compliance in the following areas:
• CSO prevention during dry weather.
• Implementation of the nine minimum CSO controls.
• Adherence to a schedule for development, submission, and implementation of a LTCP,
including any interim deliverables.
• Adherence to schedule for implementation of the CSO controls selected from the LTCP.
• Elimination or relocation of overflows from identified sensitive areas, as defined in the
approved LTCP.
• Meeting narrative, performance-based, or numerical water quality-based effluent
limitations.
• Monitoring program, including baseline information on frequency, duration, and
impacts of CSOs.
PREPARATION
As stated above, the requirements for CSO control will be found in the NPDES permit, or in
some cases, in an enforcement order, such as an administrative order or judicial order, or a
consent decree. Inspectors should review the permit (and permit amendments) and other
enforceable mechanisms (e.g., consent orders) issued to the permittee. The inspector should be
aware that in some cases the CSSs and CSO structures (i.e., pump stations) may be permitted
separately from the POTW. The inspector may find:
• Requirements to implement and document implementation of technology-based
controls (at a minimum, the nine minimum controls) by the date specified in the permit
or enforceable mechanism.
• A requirement to submit a report documenting the implementation of the nine
minimum controls; the report will usually be required within 2 years of permit issuance.
• Requirements for implementation of the Long-Term CSO Control Plan. Since the CSO
Policy has been in place since 1994, all CSO communities should be implementing their
LTCPs. LTCP, should have narrative requirements pertaining to the implementation,
operation, and maintenance of the selected CSO controls described in the LTCP. There
Chapter 12 - Page 285
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
will also be an implementation schedule for CSO controls either in the permit or in an
appropriate enforceable mechanism.
• Water quality-based effluent limits for CSOs. Numeric limits may not be found in the
initial permits when the permittee is developing or implementing its LTCP, but may
instead include a requirement to immediately comply with applicable WQSs expressed
in the form of a narrative limitation. Permittees that have completed and are
implementing their LTCPs may include water quality-based effluent limitations in the
form of one or more of the following permit conditions for CSOs:
- A maximum number of overflow events per year for specified design conditions.
- Minimum percentage capture of combined sewage by volume for treatment under
specified design conditions.
- Minimum percentage reduction of the mass of pollutants discharged for specified
design conditions.
- Other performance-based standards and requirements.
• Requirements to implement a post-construction compliance monitoring program. This
will be required for permittees that have completed implementation of their LTCPs.
• Requirement to re-assess overflows to sensitive areas. This will only be imposed in those
cases where elimination or relocation of CSOs from sensitive areas were proven not to
be physically possible and economically achievable.
• Conditions establishing requirements for maximizing the treatment of wet weather
flows at the treatment plant.
The inspector should also review any CSO reports submitted by the permittee. The permittee
may have submitted information in response to CWA section 308 information collection
requests. The permittee may have submitted CSO monitoring plans or a report characterizing
its combined sewer system, a report documenting implementation of the nine minimum CSO
controls, or a Long-Term CSO Control Plan. Other documents and/or information that should be
reviewed, if available, include:
• Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).
• Citizen complaints.
• Correspondence.
• Notices of Violation.
• Annual reports (including annual capacity reports).
• Facility reports describing CSO discharge points and overflow problems.
• Inspection reports.
• Noncompliance notification reports describing overflows (usually attached to DMRs).
• Maps or reports detailing the proximity of overflows to drinking water sources.
• Reports that describe the potential for CSO impacts to human health or the
environment.
Chapter 12 - Page 286
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Reviewing these permittee reports will help the inspector become knowledgeable about the
permittee's specific CSO problems and existing CSO controls. The inspector should make copies
of those documents that 1) establish enforceable CSO requirements, 2) provide evidence that
an enforceable requirement has been violated or 3) provide evidence of environmental
problems related to CSOs. When reviewing the permit, it is also important to review the
narrative language that might contain additional non-numeric requirements that may be
enforceable, such as: proper operation and maintenance of the system (including the collection
system); CSO discharges being free from odors or floatable materials; and CSO discharge not
causing or contributing to water quality impairments.
The inspector should make sure that EPA has a complete copy of noncompliance notification
reports for the last five years, indicating the date, time, duration, flow rate, cause, and actions
to correct, prevent, and mitigate each overflow from the facility. The inspector should also have
a map or other document that provides the location of each CSO discharge point and identifies
the receiving stream to which the overflow discharges.
ON-SITE RECORDS REVIEW
The inspector should review the following CSO records:
• Logbooks, internal electronic data systems (e.g., operating and maintenance activity
data systems, SCADA control system data), reports, or internal memos describing
maintenance and operation activities concerning the sewer system and CSO outfalls.
• CSO outfall flow records.
• Monitoring data on CSOs, collection system, or receiving stream.
• Records pertaining to installation of CSO controls.
• Feasibility studies.
• Capital project summaries (description and cost of each project).
Recordkeeping requirements vary by facility depending on the specific CSO controls the facility
has selected and is implementing. If the permittee has submitted a report documenting
implementation of the nine minimum CSO controls, the inspector should review appropriate
records kept at the facility to verify the information in this report. Table 12-3 lists examples of
possible records that might be kept to document the implementation of the nine minimum CSO
controls. These examples are provided as illustrations and not requirements. The inspector
should use the facility's permit or other enforceable document as a guide to determine what
specific records the facility is required to keep and maintain. The facility's CSO operations and
maintenance manual and CSO control plan can provide the inspector with insight into the
specific types of records the facility would have. In addition, many permittees maintain
electronic systems to track complaints, responses, and operation and maintenance activities.
The inspector should review these systems and other available information sources to identify
potential issues such as recurring complaints (indicating improper operation and maintenance)
or potentially unreported dry weather overflows.
Chapter 12 - Page 287
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 12-3. CSO Records
Minimum CSO Controls
Examples of Records/Documentation
Proper Operation and
Regular Maintenance
Program
• Standard Operating Procedures, Operations and Maintenance Manual,
or similar manual or plan.
• Log of sewer system cleaning, flushing, or debris removal.
• Log of repair or maintenance of regulators.
• Log of lift station malfunctions and repairs made.
• Log of preventive maintenance of interceptor lift stations and pumps.
• Work orders for corrective activities.
• Log of inspections of lift stations, sewer lines, and regulators.
Maximum Use of
Collection System for
Storage
• Hydraulic study of system and evaluation of alternatives to maximize wet
weather flow storage capacity.
• Records of installation of in-line devices such as dams, regulators, and
gates to retard flow.
• Installation of separate sanitary and stormwater lines.
• Replacement of undersized pipes.
• Adjustment of regulator settings or upgrading/adjusting pumping rates
at lift stations.
• Off-line temporary storage.
Review and Modification
of the Pretreatment
Program
• Inventory of nondomestic discharges.
• Public Water Supply records of water usage for top nondomestic
dischargers.
• Assessment of significance of nondomestic discharges on CSO and
receiving waters.
• Pretreatment controls to reduce/eliminate industrial contaminants
during wet weather.
Maximization of Flows to
the POTW for Treatment
• Summary of analyses conducted.
• Maximum wet weather flow Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) can
receive without pass-through or interference.
• Description of modifications to be implemented.
Prohibition of Dry
Weather Overflows
(DWOs)
• Log of inspections of CSOs during dry weather and observations made
during these inspections.
• Log of Dry Weather Overflow (DWO) reports submitted.
Control of Solids and
Floatable Materials in
CSOS
• Installation of screens or booms.
• Source control activities such as regular street cleaning, highly visible
anti-litter programs.
• MS4 stormwater annual report.
Pollution Prevention
• Documentation of street sweeping, anti-litter campaigns.
Public Notification
• CSO outfalls are posted with correct signage.
• Date and proof of public notice, procedure (by newspaper, radio), public
notice information.
Monitoring of CSOs
• Identification of outfall locations (i.e., latitude and longitude or street
address).
Chapter 12 - Page 288
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Minimum CSO Controls
Table 12-3. CSO Records
Examples of Records/Documentation
• Number and location of overflow events including duration, volume, and
pollutant loadings.
• Receiving stream data and impact (e.g., beach closings, fish kills).
• Monitoring plan.
INTERVIEWS
As with all of the NPDES compliance inspections, interviews with appropriate personnel with
firsthand knowledge of CSS/CSO activities can be useful in obtaining factual information. The
inspector should interview the person in the highest position of authority responsible for the
day-to-day development or implementation of the LTCP. Other personnel, such as the
collection crew or others involved in inspecting, operating, and maintaining CSOs or CSO
controls should also be interviewed. It is particularly important that the inspector obtain
written statements (see Chapter 2) where personnel are providing information that is not or
cannot be substantiated by the facility's records or the inspector's own observations.
If the facility is developing or implementing a LTCP, the inspector may want to interview those
personnel responsible for that plan. Generally, the facility will be under a schedule with distinct
activities and milestones established. This schedule may be in the permit, but will more likely be
in an enforcement order. Other schedules, such as those submitted by the permittee in a report
or in its LTCP are not enforceable schedules, and should only be referred to if an enforceable
schedule does not exist. The inspector should focus on verifying the LTCP development or
implementation activities that 1) the permittee has reported have been developed/
implemented and 2) the permittee was required to have developed/implemented according to
a schedule in the permit or enforcement order.
The following are examples of relevant questions that the inspector can use to obtain a general
understanding of the facility. Other questions relevant to the specific NMCs are listed in Table
12-4. The inspector should add to these questions based on the specific requirements in the
facility's permit. For example, if the permit requires submission of a "CSO Characterization
Report" within 180 days of the permit issuance, the inspector should request the report and
verify whether it was submitted within the established timeframe.
• What type of technology is used to control CSO discharges? Describe regulator
mechanisms used, including size, type, presence or absence of backflow devices, and
location.
• Describe the system, identifying the older and newer facilities that are used.
• Which areas and percentage of the collection system are combined and which areas
contain separate storm and sanitary systems? What sewer systems/communities are
served by the treatment plant? Is the collection system gravity fed or are pumps used? If
pumping stations are used, how many are there and where are they located?
Chapter 12 - Page 289
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• What flows does the municipality receive from other municipalities? Are these
upstream systems combined sewer systems or separate sanitary systems? What kinds of
overflow problems have the upstream municipalities reported? What agreements are in
place establishing which municipality has authority and duty to maintain various parts of
the sewer system?
• How many overflows have occurred in the collection system, including contributing
jurisdictions, within the last five years?
• What is the most common cause of overflows?
• What is an estimate of the amount of rainfall or snowmelt needed to cause CSOs?
• Where are the CSO outfalls located? Are any located at pump stations? What receiving
stream does each CSO discharge to?
• What is a typical monthly rate of CSO events (including dry and wet weather events)?
• What samples have been taken of overflows? (Ask to see sample results.)
• What steps is the municipality taking to comply with the CSO requirements in its
permit? If the municipality is planning to meet a different schedule than that required in
the permit, what is its timeline?
Table 12-4. CSO Interview Questions
Minimum CSO Controls
Examples of Interview Questions
Proper Operations and
Regular Maintenance
Program
• How often are CSO discharge locations inspected? Who conducts the
inspections? What records do they keep? How is corrective action
assured when a problem is discovered? How are the operability and
reliability of regulators verified?
• Do the pump stations have backup power? Is any other type of
redundancy built into the collection system to minimize the occurrence
of overflows?
• What is the municipality's budget for collection system operation? For
collection system maintenance? How much was spent last year on
collection system operation and maintenance? What has been the trend
in operation and maintenance budget overtime?
• How many people are dedicated to maintaining the collection system?
What has been the staffing trend over time?
• What improvements are planned? Are these projects funded? What is
the process for funding capital improvements?
• How are personnel trained?
• How often is the Operations & Maintenance plan reviewed? When was
the last revision?
• If green infrastructure is used to reduce flow how are controls being
maintained to ensure continued effectiveness?
• Have O&M plans been updated to include Gl maintenance?
Maximum Use of
Collection System for
Storage
• What steps are taken to maximize use of the collection system for
storage? (e.g., install dams, weirs, and regulators)
Chapter 12 - Page 290
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 12-4. CSO Interview Questions
Minimum CSO Controls
Examples of Interview Questions
Review and Modification
of the Pretreatment
Program
• When were the pretreatment requirements last reviewed to ensure
minimization of CSO impacts from upstream Industrial Users? What
changes have been made to the program to accomplish this goal? What
percentage of total flow comes from nondomestic sources?
Maximization of Flows to
the POTW for Treatment
• What steps are taken to maximize flow to the POTW?
• What are the bottlenecks in the sewer system? What facilities in the
system are critical to the performance of the CSS?
• What are the capabilities of major interceptors and pumping stations
delivering flows to the treatment POTW?
• How do wet weather flows to the POTW compare with dry weather
flows?
• How does the current total flow compare to the design capacity?
• What, if any, unused treatment facilities are used to store wet weather
flows?
Prohibition of Dry
Weather Overflows
(DWOs)
• What has the municipality done to eliminate dry weather overflows?
• How does the municipality identify dry weather overflows? If inspections
are used, how often are the inspections performed? What type of
monitoring is performed to identify dry weather overflows?
• Describe the most recent cleaning, sewer repair, or regulator repair
performed to alleviate a dry weather overflow.
• How does the municipality determine which dry weather overflows
could endanger health or the environment?
Control of Solids and
Floatable Materials in
CSOS
• How does the municipality keep solids and floatables out of the CSO
discharge?
• If solids and floatables do reach the receiving waters, how does the
municipality remove them?
Pollution Prevention
• What pollution prevention measures (e.g., street cleaning, public
education, waste collection or recycling) does the municipality take to
keep contaminants from entering the sewer system?
Public Notification
• How has the public been notified of the location of CSO discharge
points? How does the municipality notify the public of overflow
incidents? When was the last notification?
• What is the internal mechanism for reporting sewage overflows? How
does this information reach the permitting authority?
Monitoring of CSOs
• How does the municipality monitor CSOs? How does the municipality
use this monitoring to characterize the impacts of CSOs? How does the
municipality use this monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of CSO
controls? Does the municipality monitor CSO flow rates?
• What information from other groups (e.g., Coast Guard or local
volunteer groups) does the municipality collect on water quality or use
of waters affected by CSOs (e.g., beach closings, fish kills)?
Chapter 12 - Page 291
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 12-4. CSO Interview Questions
Minimum CSO Controls
Examples of Interview Questions
• Which CSO receiving waters are the most sensitive? Why? (e.g.,
proximity to drinking water sources) |
FACILITY SITE INSPECTION
An inspection of the CSO outfalls should be included in a NPDES compliance inspection to get a
complete picture of how the overall POTW (wastewater treatment plant and collection system)
is performing. This is especially true if the inspection's focus or one of its objectives is to
investigate compliance with CSO requirements. In such cases, an inspection of CSO structures,
CSO treatment systems, or key areas of the collection system is necessary. If the intent of the
inspection is to observe CSO discharges or treatment, it may be necessary to schedule this
inspection during or immediately after a wet weather event. These outfalls would be located
throughout the collection system and, therefore, may be several miles from the treatment
facility.
It is not necessary to inspect all CSO outfalls. The inspector can select a few either randomly or
can use several criteria to select which outfalls to inspect, including:
• Location (closest to the plant, or proximity to other outfalls).
• Size as measured by discharge volume (e.g., the largest discharge volumes).
• Frequency of discharge (during wet weather).
• Treatment of solids and floatables (if the inspector wishes to evaluate the operation and
maintenance of such controls).
• Incidence of dry weather overflows (DWOs).
• Discharges to sensitive areas.
• Impact on water quality (those known to impact water quality).
• Lack of previous inspections by the permittee.
If the inspector observes any dry weather CSO discharges, the inspector should make a
photographic record (see Chapter 2); note the appearance and approximate flow rate of the
discharge; if possible, sample the discharge (assuming that adequate laboratories are available
for the analysis); note the present and immediately preceding weather conditions; and conduct
in-depth interviews and obtain statements from facility personnel.
C, REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on CSOs.
Federal Register. (1989). National CSO Control Strategy: Notice. Volume 54, No. 3737.0
Federal Register. (1994). Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy: Notice. Volume 59, No. 75.
Chapter 12 - Page 292
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). Manual: Combined Sewer Overflow Control.
Washington, D.C. EPA 625/R-93-007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995a). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Long-
Term Control Plan. EPA 832-B-95-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995b). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Nine
Minimum Control Measures. EPA 832-B-95-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995c). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Permit
Writers. EPA 832-B-95-008
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995d). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for
Screening and Ranking. EPA 832-B-95-004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995e). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for
Funding Options. EPA 832-B-95-007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996a). The Enforcement Management System National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water Act) Chapter X: Setting Priorities for
Addressing Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b). Sanitary Sewer Overflows: What are they and
how can we reduce them? EPA 832-K-96-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance on
Financial Capability and Schedule Development. EPA 832-B-97-004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for
Monitoring and Modeling. EPA 832-B-99-002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000a). Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for CSOs
and SSOs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000b). Benefits of Protecting Your Community from
Sanitary Sewer Overflows. EPA 832-F-00-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001a). Evaluating POTW Capacity, Management,
Operation, and Maintenance Programs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001b). Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long-term
Planning with Water Quality Standards Reviews. EPA-833-R-01-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Integrated Municipal Stormwater and
Wastewater Planning Approach Framework.
Chapter 12 - Page 293
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014a). Financial Capability Assessment Framework.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014b). Greening CSO Plans: Planning and Modeling
Green Infrastructure for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control. EPA 832-R-14-001.
D. CSO EVALUATION CHECKLIST
A. IDENTIFICATION OF CSOs
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Are all CSO points identified?
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Does facility have maps/schematics of Combined Sewer System (CSS) depicting
location of all CSO discharge points?
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Is each CSO discharge point located by longitude, latitude, and street address on
appropriate maps?
B. DRY WEATHER OVERFLOWS
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Are the locations of all dry weather CSOs known by permittee?
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Does permittee have records of quantitative loads and flows on all dry weather CSO
events?
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Has notification been given to EPA/state of all dry weather CSO discharges?
Yes
No
N/A
4.
Are there any unreported dry weather CSOs?
C. RECORDS
1.
Are the following records kept for CSO events?
Yes
No
N/A
• Location.
Yes
No
N/A
• Frequency of discharge.
Yes
No
N/A
• Flow magnitude.
Yes
No
N/A
• Discharge pattern.
Yes
No
N/A
• Total volume of discharge.
Yes
No
N/A
• Duration of the event.
Yes
No
N/A
• Pollutant characterization.
Yes
No
N/A
• Correlation with rainfall records.
Yes
No
N/A
• Specific causes of overflows.
Yes
No
N/A
• Flow collected/flow diverted?
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Are records of CSO flows maintained?
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Are records accurate?
D. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Is there a CSS O&M manual and does it address O&M of CSO structures?
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Does the facility conduct inspections of the CSS and CSO structures?
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Are these inspections documented? Does documentation include results of various
types of inspections, dates and times, corrective action taken if problems were
found?
Chapter 12 - Page 294
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Yes No N/A
E. COMPLIANCE
4. Is a logbook of maintenance and repair on the CSS and CSO structures maintained?
Does this note the type of problem (or indicate routine maintenance), repair made,
or maintenance activity conducted, date?
SCHEDULES
1. Is permittee meeting CSO compliance schedule for:
Yes No N/A
• Implementing nine minimum CSO controls?
Yes No N/A
• Developing LTCP?
Yes No N/A
• Implementing LTCP?
Yes No N/A
2. Has permittee requested an extension of time?
Chapter 12 - Page 295
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 13 -
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS
Contents
A. Overview of SSOs 297
B. SSO Inspection Procedures 299
Preparation 299
Records Review 301
Interviews 302
Facility Site Inspection 303
C. References 306
List of Tables
Table 13-1. Documents to Review 305
Related Websites
Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) home page: http://www.epa.gov/owm
Chapter 13 —Page 296
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. OVERVIEW OF SSOS
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures."
Sanitary sewer collection systems are designed to remove wastewater from homes and other
buildings and convey it to a proper treatment facility and disposal location. The collection
system is critical to successful performance of the wastewater treatment process. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that collection systems in the United States
have a replacement value of $1 to $2 trillion. Under certain conditions, poorly designed, built,
managed, operated, and/or maintained systems can pose risks to public health and the
environment. These risks arise from sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from the collection
system. SSOs are discharges of wastewater (including that combined with rainfall-induced
infiltration/inflow) from a separate sanitary sewer prior to treatment at the wastewater
treatment plant. SSOs typically release untreated sewage into basements or out of manholes
and onto city streets, public spaces, and into streams.
Effective and continuous management, operation, and maintenance, as well as ensuring
adequate capacity and performing rehabilitation, when necessary, are critical to maintaining
collection system capacity and performance while extending the life of the system. Many
sanitary sewer collection systems, however, have received minimal maintenance over the years
resulting in deteriorated sewers with subsequent overflows, cave-ins, hydraulic overloads at
treatment plants, and other safety, health, and environmental problems. As one of the most
serious and environmentally threatening problems, sanitary sewer overflows are a frequent
cause of water quality violations and are a threat to public health and the environment. Beach
closings, flooded basements, closed shellfish beds and hydraulically overloaded wastewater
treatment plants are some symptoms of collection systems with inadequate capacity and
improper management, operations, and maintenance.
Even though separate sanitary sewer systems are designed to collect and transport all the
sewage that flows into them, SSOs can still occur. Recurring SSOs typically indicate that
something is wrong with the system. Problems contributing to SSOs include:
• Deteriorating sewer system: Many sewer authorities neglect to plan and fund long-
term sewer rehabilitation and replacement projects.
• Infiltration and inflow (l&l): This involves too much rainfall or snowmelt infiltrating
through the ground into leaky sanitary sewers, excess water inflowing through roof
drains connected to sewers, broken pipes, or badly connected sewer service lines.
Unlike combined sewers, sanitary sewers are not intended to collect or convey rainfall
or to drain property.
® Undersized systems: Sewers and pumps are too small to carry sewage from newly
developed subdivisions or commercial areas; this may be exacerbated by l&l.
Chapter 13 - Page 297
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Pipe failures: Pipe failures result from blocked, broken or cracked pipes. Sections of pipe
settle or shift so that pipe joints no longer align with one another, sediment and other
material build up causing pipes to break or collapse.
• Pump station failures: This results from pump failures, power failures, and inadequate
wet well capacity.
• Sewer service connections: Discharges occur at sewer service connections to houses
and other buildings due to pipe blockages and/or failures.
• Pipe blockages: Grease and tree roots are the primary causes of sewer blockages.
• Vandalism and construction-related spills: While there are many causes for vandalism,
they often result in blockages or failure of pumps. For construction, breaks in lines occur
due to improperly marked lines, or errant excavation contractors.
From a compliance standpoint, Chapter X of the Enforcement Management System (EMS):
Setting Priorities for Addressing Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers (EPA, 1996a),
establishes a series of guiding principles and priorities for use by EPA Regions and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) states in responding to separate sanitary sewer
discharge violations. Chapter X states:
"For a person to be in violation of the Clean Water Act: 1) a person must own,
operate, or have substantial control over the conveyance from which the discharge
of pollutants occurs, 2) the discharge must be prohibited by a permit, be a violation
of the permit language, or not be authorized by a permit, and 3) the discharge must
reach waters of the United States. In addition, discharges that do not reach waters of
the United States may nevertheless be in violation of Clean Water Act permit
requirements, such as those requiring proper operation and maintenance (O&M), or
may be in violation of State law."
The exact use of language in a NPDES permit disallowing SSOs may vary from one facility to
another (often depending on how a state NPDES permit authority contends with SSOs). Some
permits explicitly prohibit overflows from the system and in other cases, where the permit may
be silent, SSOs that discharge to waters of the United States are treated as unauthorized
discharges and a violation of the CWA. In either circumstance, SSOs that discharge to waters of
the United States are prohibited and illegal.
Systems have been found to be out of compliance because of overflows (even those that do not
reach waters of the United States) that are the result of improper operation and maintenance.
The regulations at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122.41(e) require, as a
standard NPDES permit condition, that permitted wastewater owners or operators must
"properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit."
Another standard permit condition regarding the duty to mitigate states that "the permittee
shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge... in violation of [the]
Chapter 13 - Page 298
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment" (40 CFR 122.41 (d)). This may be interpreted to include sanitary sewer overflow
discharges.
Most permittees are required to report any noncompliance, including any overflows, regardless
of volume, that result in a discharge or that are caused by improper operation and
maintenance. Most permits also require that any noncompliance, including overflows which
may endanger the health or the environment, be reported within 24 hours, and in writing
within five days (40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)). Most permits also require notification to the public and
other entities (Third Party Notice) of overflows that may endanger health due to a likelihood of
human exposure.
Since there are minor variations among permits regarding how to deal with overflows (except
for the standard permit conditions that appear in all permits), the NPDES inspector should rely
on the guidance in Chapter X of the EMS (part of which has been summarized above), NPDES
permit requirements for municipal sanitary sewer collection systems and SSOs, and the Publicly
Owned Treatment Work (POTW) NPDES permit for standards for evaluating compliance.
_ __________
During an inspection of a sanitary sewer system, the inspector will obtain information indicating
whether the sewer authority is properly managing, operating, and maintaining its collection
system and taking all feasible steps to stop sanitary sewer overflows. The inspection of one
sanitary sewer system may involve visits to more than one municipality, depending upon the
configuration and possible shared responsibility for the system. Before conducting the
inspection, the inspector should identify the authorities responsible for operation of the system
and define the scope of the inspection.
PREPARATION
In evaluating either a system with a history of SSOs or a system in which overflows may not
necessarily be documented, the compliance inspector will rely primarily on the permit10 as a
starting point. The inspector should refer to standard permit language contained in the NPDES
permit. The inspector should also review the permit for any overflow-related requirements
specific to the system.
An enforcement order, consent decree, or other enforceable document might also indicate
prohibition, notification, or special circumstance language. Often, the establishment of a
sanitary sewer discharge control program is the result of an enforcement action against a
10 Municipal satellite collection systems are sanitary sewers owned or operated by a municipality that conveys
sewage or industrial wastewater to a POTW that has a treatment plant owned or operated by a different
municipality. These types of facilities do not typically have their own NPDES permit. Any discharge from a
municipal satellite collection system without a permit would be a violation of the CWA and would be subject to
potential enforcement.
Chapter 13 - Page 299
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
system. The inspector should refer to the enforcement document (e.g., consent decree, order,
or other settlement) for a compliance schedule for sanitary sewer discharge control programs.
The compliance inspector will be faced with obtaining information to determine compliance in
the following areas:
NPDES Standard Conditions
• Proper Operation and Maintenance. Regulatory language at 40 Part 122.41(e) states
that: "The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and
systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or
used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit." Poor
operation and maintenance practices frequently lead to unpermitted discharges.
• Duty to Mitigate. Regulatory language at 40 CFR 122.41(d) states that: "The permittee
shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge... in violation of
[the] permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or
the environment." These steps would include activities critical to the operation and
maintenance of the system.
• Non-compliance Reporting. Regulatory language at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) states that: "The
permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the
environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time
the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances." Regulatory language at 40 CFR
122.41(l)(7) states that: "The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not
reported under paragraphs (l)(4), (5), and (6) of this section, at the time monitoring
reports are submitted."
Notification Procedures
• In general, permits require that any noncompliance, including overflows that result in a
discharge or that are caused by improper operation and maintenance, be reported at
the end of each month with the DMR (see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)). At a minimum,
permits typically require that overflow summaries include the date, time, duration,
location, estimated volume, cause, as well as any observed environmental impacts, and
what actions were taken or are being taken to address the overflow.
• Most permits also require that any noncompliance, including overflows, which may
endanger the health or the environment be reported within 24 hours, and in writing
within five days. Examples of overflows which may endanger health or the environment
include major line breaks, overflow events that result in fish kills or other significant
harm, and overflow events that occur in environmentally sensitive areas. Most permits
also require notification to the public and other entities (Third Party Notice) of
overflows that may endanger health due to a likelihood of human exposure.
Prohibition of Unpermitted Discharges
• Discharges to waters of the United States must be regulated by a NPDES permit. Any
discharge from a location other than the effluent discharge point specified in the permit
Chapter 13 - Page 300
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
constitutes an unpermitted discharge. This includes dry weather overflows and
discharges from municipal satellite collection systems without permits.
RECORDS REVIEW
Prior to the inspection, the inspector should review the permittee's DMRs, SSO notification
reports submitted by the permittee, sewer overflow service calls, and other documents that
may have relevant information (e.g., annual reports). The permittee may have submitted
information in response to EPA CWA section 308 information requests on SSOs. As required by
an enforcement action, the permittee may have submitted plans or a report characterizing its
program to eliminate SSOs or a report documenting progress of its sanitary sewer discharge
control programs or describing SSO discharge points and overflow problems. Other documents
and information that should be reviewed, if available, include:
• Citizen complaints
• Correspondence
• Notices of violation
• Annual capacity reports
• Inspection reports
• Maps illustrating the proximity of overflows to drinking water sources
• Depth of ground water
• Age of the city
• Extent of city ownership of service connection laterals
• Potential for impact to human health and the environment
Reviewing these reports in advance of the inspection will help the inspector become
knowledgeable about the permittee's specific SSO problems, existing SSO controls, and/or plans
to reduce or eliminate their SSO problems. The inspector should make copies of those
documents that provide evidence of 1) any SSO occurring at the facility within the previous five
years or 2) environmental problems related to SSOs at the facility. The inspector should make
sure that EPA has a complete copy of the last five years of noncompliance notification reports,
indicating the date, time, duration, flow rate, cause, and actions to correct, prevent, and
mitigate each sewage overflow from the facility.
During the on-site records review, the types of records that the inspector should find at the
facility include logs, reports, or internal memos describing maintenance and operation activities
concerning the sanitary sewer system and SSOs. As in any NPDES evaluation, the inspector
should review DMRs as well as monitoring results as reported by the laboratory that analyzed
the data.
However, during inspections concerned with SSOs, the inspector might also request records
pertaining to management, budget, and planning for sewer infrastructure improvements. The
inspector might also want to review maps of the sanitary sewer system, indicating the locations
of manholes, pump stations, etc. Table 13-1 contains a sample list of documents to review.
Chapter 13 - Page 301
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Items have been arranged under headings for each of the four major components: Capacity,
Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM). There is some overlap between the
areas where an inspector would typically use some of the documents listed. For example,
POTW flow records would be helpful in the section of the inspection report relating to
operations and maintenance as well as capacity. As appropriate, the permittee should have as
many of these records readily available as possible.
EPA has an inspection guide for CMOM programs at collection systems, the Guide for
Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance Programs at Sanitary Sewer
Collection Systems (EPA, 2005). This guide includes a detailed checklist for conducting
evaluations of wastewater collection system CMOM programs. The guide also provides a form
that provides examples of the types of information an inspector should attempt to obtain while
on-site. In addition, EPA Region 4 has developed materials and guidance to help a municipality
with its CMOM program (see references of this chapter).
INTERVIEWS
As with all NPDES compliance inspections, interviews with appropriate personnel are essential
to understanding the context and meaning of the documents and records. In the case of SSO
investigations, appropriate personnel would include people in the highest position of authority
at the facility as well as those responsible for day-to-day operations, maintenance and/or
oversight of crews such as the collection crew or others involved in inspecting, operating, and
maintaining the system. It is particularly important that the inspector obtain written statements
(see Chapter 2) where personnel are providing information that is not or cannot be
substantiated by the facility's records or the inspector's own observations.
The following are examples of relevant questions that the inspector can use to obtain a general
understanding of the facility.
• What is the capacity of the collection system? Is the capacity adequate? What measures
have been taken to prevent SSOs?
• What flows does the municipality receive from other municipalities? What kinds of
overflow problems have the upstream municipalities reported? What agreements exist
to maintain various parts of the sewer systems?
• What are the causes of overflows, where do they occur, and how are they documented
and reported?
• Where are the potential SSO point discharges located? Are any located at pump
stations? What receiving stream does each SSO discharge to?
• How many SSOs have occurred in the past five years? What is the plan to reduce/
eliminate SSOs?
• What are the SSO remediation policies and emergency Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs)?
• How does the authority identify and assess impact from non-municipally owned lateral
lines?
Chapter 13 - Page 302
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• What preventive and response Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as
containment, recovery, and minimization of impact to human health and the
environment, are in place?
• How are personnel trained to manage and/or prevent SSOs, and what are current
staffing levels?
• Are there any alarms or monitoring systems to alert you of an imminent SSO, and what
are they?
• What are the goals of the authority's program for managing, operating, and maintaining
the sanitary sewer conveyance system?
• What structural deficiencies have been identified in the system?
• What is the O&M schedule for replacement parts/equipment and collection system
improvements?
• What studies have been performed of the authority's program for managing, operating,
and maintaining the sanitary sewer collection system?
FACILITY SITE INSPECTION
Previous chapters of this manual provide guidance on general procedures for performing
compliance inspections and are a valuable source of information on such topics as entry, legal
authority and responsibilities of the inspector. However, there are some issues with entry that
are specific to CMOM inspections. The inspector should be aware that some collection system
components may be on private property, and they must gain entry properly through the
property owner.
After reviewing records of SSO incidents, the inspector should visit previously identified SSO
locations. The field inspection of the collection system should be directed by information
gathered on prior SSOs, noncompliance notifications, citizen complaints, state reports,
municipal studies, etc. Locations where large or representative SSOs have occurred or where
SSOs occur more frequently should have higher priority for field inspection. The inspector
should review causes (e.g., evidence of illicit connections) and determine whether the situation
that led to the spill has been adequately addressed.
Field sampling must be conducted according to approved EPA methodology discussed in other
chapters and may include sampling of the discharge and/or the receiving stream. Field sampling
may be useful in developing enforcement actions to address chronic or acute violations, and as
such, must be conducted with strict adherence to 40 CFR Part 136 and chain-of-custody
protocol.
The inspector is reminded to take appropriate safety precautions. Collection systems may
present physical, biological, chemical, and atmospheric hazards. Safety equipment should
include a hard hat, steel-toed boots, safety glasses, gloves and for those with prescription
eyeglasses, eyeglass straps are very important. A flashlight (and/or a small mirror) is also useful
for collection system inspections. Collection system operators typically deal with manhole cover
removal and other physical activities. The inspector should not enter confined spaces. In sewer
collection systems, the two most common confined spaces are the underground pumping
Chapter 13 - Page 303
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
station and manholes. The underground pumping station is typically entered through a
relatively narrow metal or concrete shaft via a fixed ladder creating limited access and
entry/exit.
Chapter 13 - Page 304
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 13-1. Documents to Review
Capacity
Management
Operations
Maintenance
• Information relating to system
• Organization chart(s) and chain of
• Detailed maps/schematics of the
• Routine reports regarding system
capacity.
communication for reporting SSOs.
collection system and pump
O&M activities.
• Performance data.
• Program goals.
stations.
• Work order management system.
• POTW Flow Records.
• Management policies and
• O&M manuals.
• Maintenance tasks and frequencies.
• Capital improvement projects
procedures.
• Inspection strategy, forms, and
• Replacement parts inventory.
(CIP) plan (including funding and
• Job descriptions.
records.
• Performance measures for
planned improvements).
• Staffing plans, crew assignments
• SSO reports detailing location,
inspection, cleaning, repair,
• Collection system master plan.
and schedules.
receiving water, volume, cause,
rehabilitation sewers, and force
• Infiltration/Inflow studies.
• Sewer Use Ordinance, Grease
start and stop date and time,
mains.
• l/l studies and evaluations
Control Ordinance.
system component, corrective
• Preventive maintenance cleaning
(including programs for
• Legal authority establishing control
action, and actions to mitigate
strategy.
eliminating illegal connections).
of system equipment and its
impacts.
• Problem diagnosis records.
maintenance.
• Safety manual.
• Repair, rehabilitation, replacement
• O&M budget with cost centers for
• Emergency response plan/SOP
strategy for pipes and pump
wastewater collection.
(awareness, notification, training,
stations.
• Recent annual report if available.
and emergency response).
• Record of citizen complaints and
• Procurement process.
• SCADA and other alarm system
emergencies (normal hours and
• Information systems.
information.
after hours).
• Training plan.
• Materials management program.
• Notifications to public health
• Training and certification records.
• Vehicle management.
agencies, NPDES authority, and
• Public education materials.
• Overall map of system showing
other entities.
• Policy and procedures for trenching,
facilities such as pump stations,
confined space, lockout tagout, PPE.
treatment plants, major gravity.
• CMOM program audits.
• Odor and corrosion control strategy.
• Methods to extend good collection
• Root control program.
systems management to any
• Sampling procedures.
satellite communities discharging to
• Industrial pretreatment oversight of
the central system.
the collection system.
Chapter 13 - Page 305
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
C. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on SSOs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Enforcement Efforts Addressing Sanitary Sewer
Overflows. EPA Memorandum.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996a). The Enforcement Management System National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water Act) Chapter X: Setting Priorities for
Addressing Discharges from Separate Sanitary Sewers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996b). Sanitary Sewer Overflows: What are they and
how can we reduce them? EPA 832-K-96-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996c). Sanitary Sewer Overflow and Sanitary Sewer
Operation, Maintenance, and Management Draft Unified Paper.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000a). Compliance and Enforcement Strategy
Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows. EPA Memorandum.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000b). Brochure: Benefits of Protection Your
Community from Sanitary Sewer Overflows. EPA 832-F-00-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001a). Fact sheet: Why Control Sanitary Sewer
Overflows?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001b). Benefits of Protecting Your Community From
Sanitary Sewer Overflows. EPA 832-F-00-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001c). Evaluating POTW Capacity Management,
Operation, and Maintenance Programs. Office of Compliance and Region 4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001d). Fact sheet: Evaluating POTW Capacity,
Management, Operation, and Maintenance Programs. Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance & Region 4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). Case Study: Clearwater, Florida Abates Sanitary
Sewer Overflows Using the EPA Region 4 Management, Operations and Maintenance
Approach. EPA 833-R-02-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). Fact Sheet: Asset Management for Sewer
Collection Systems. EPA 833-F-02-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs
and SSOs. EPA 833-R-04-001.
Chapter 13 - Page 306
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management,
Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems. EPA
305-B-05-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007a). Fact Sheet: Draft NPDES Permit Requirements
for Municipal Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems and SSOs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b). Model NPDES Permit Language for Sanitary
Sewer Overflows.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Achieving Water Quality Through Integrated
MunicipalStormwater and Wastewater Plans. EPA Memorandum.
Chapter 13 - Page 307
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 14 -
INSPECTING GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE CONTROLS
Contents
A. Introduction 310
Science of Green Infrastructure 310
Design and Inspection Preparation 311
Considerations on Inspection Timing 312
Types of Green Infrastructure Management Practices 313
B. Infiltration Controls 314
Description 314
Design of Infiltration Controls 316
Inspecting Infiltration Controls 317
Common Infiltration Control Issues 317
C. Permeable Pavement Controls 319
Description 319
Design of Permeable Pavements and Pavers 322
Inspecting Permeable Pavements 322
Common Permeable Pavement Issues 323
D. Rainwater Harvesting Systems 325
Description 325
Design of Rainwater Harvesting Systems 326
Inspecting Rainwater Harvesting Systems 329
Common Rainwater Harvesting Issues 329
E. Green Roofs 331
Description 331
Design of Green Roofs 332
Inspecting Green Roofs 334
Common Green Roof Issues 335
F. References 335
List of Tables
Table 14-1. Sample Design Management Practice Selection Matrix According to Site
Characteristics (Source: Modified from Dorman et al., 2013) 314
Chapter 14 - Page 308
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 14-1. Impacts of Urbanization (as impervious surfaces are added, less and less
precipitation is absorbed, resulting in more runoff) (Source: EPA, 2005) 311
Exhibit 14-2. Multiple Green Infrastructure Controls on a Developed Site (Source: Dorman et al.,
2013) 313
Exhibit 14-3. Example Cross-section of Bioretention with Primary Design Elements (under-drain
is optional) (Source: AHBL, 2012) 315
Exhibit 14-4. Example Primary Design Elements of a Bioretention Facility (Source: PGDER, 1999) 315
Exhibit 14-5. Example Pervious Concrete Cross-section (Source: EPA, 2009) 320
Exhibit 14-6. Example Porous Asphalt Cross-section (Source: EPA, 2009) 320
Exhibit 14-7. Example Permeable Paver Blocks Cross-section (Source: EPA, 2009) 321
Exhibit 14-8. Grid Pavers—Concrete (left) and Plastic (right) (Credit: Tetra Tech) 321
Exhibit 14-9. Porous Asphalt Signage (Credit: Tetra Tech) 323
Exhibit 14-10. First Flush Diverter (Credit: NCSU BAE) 327
Exhibit 14-11. Roof Washer (Credit: NCSU BAE) 328
Exhibit 14-12. Extensive Green Roof Illustration (Source: SEMCOG, 2008) 332
Associated Appendices
Z. Infiltration Control Inspection Form
AA. Permeable Pavements Inspection Form
AB. Rainwater Harvest Inspection Form
AC. Green Roof Inspection Form
Chapter 14 - Page 309
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. INTRODUCTION
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures
An increasing number of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees
are implementing green infrastructure practices that mimic natural processes to infiltrate,
evapotranspirate, or use stormwater on or close to where it falls. This document is designed for
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state, and local NPDES inspectors and
provides background and suggested procedures for inspecting green infrastructure practices for
proper installation, operation, and maintenance.
SCIENCE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Green infrastructure systems are often designed using soil, vegetation and natural infiltration to
more effectively manage urban stormwater and reduce impacts to receiving water. The
hydraulic cycle is altered by the land use practices associated with human development,
resulting in increased erosion and stream flooding during storms, reduced surface water base
flow and interflow (shallow infiltration), groundwater recharge, and degraded water quality.
Green infrastructure mimics pre-developed conditions by restoring the natural hydrology and
enabling water to infiltrate instead of run off. This effects the timing of water release to rivers
and streams, resulting in less flooding, and minimizing the quantity of water released into
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) or combined sewer systems (CSSs). In the
same way, green infrastructure can help reduce stormwater flow into combined sewer systems,
thereby reducing combined sewer overflows and treatment requirements, which may result in
fewer discharges of pollutants.
Green infrastructure can provide a wide variety of environmental, social, and economic benefits
in addition to water quality improvements, including improved air quality, reduced urban heat
island effect, reduced energy use, improved health, green jobs, recreational amenities, wildlife
habitat, and increased property values. Green infrastructure is also an important tool for
communities to increase their climate change resilience because it can help manage flooding,
prepare for drought, and protect coasts by reducing coastal erosion and storm impacts.
Exhibit 14-1 depicts the impact of urbanization on water infiltration and evapotranspiration.
Chapter 14 - Page 310
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
38%
tev3 potra ns pi ratioi
I 40%
eva potra inspiration
55%
runoff
30%
eva potra nspi ration
10% shallow
infiltration
5% deep
infiltration
35%-50% impervious Cover
Natural Ground Cover
10%-20% Impervious Surface
20% shallow 15% deep
infiltration infiltration
35%-50% Impervious Cover
21% shallow 21% deep
infiltration infiltration
25% shallow
infiltration
25% deep
infiltration
Exhibit 14-1. Impacts of Urbanization (as impervious surfaces are added, less and less
precipitation is absorbed, resulting in more runoff) (Source: EPA, 2005)
Green infrastructure controls increase infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation, transpiration,
and rainwater capture and reuse. Green infrastructure can be used at varying landscape scales,
including large regional treatment or watershed, as well as a neighborhood or small site in
place of, or in addition to, more traditional stormwater controls. Smali area stormwater
infiltration practices (e.g., rain gardens, bioswales, infiltration planters, and tree plantings) can
fit into individual site development or redevelopment sites, while larger area management
strategies (e.g., riparian buffers, flood plain and wetland restoration, open space and forest
preservation) systems are typically applied at the watershed level.
DESIGN AND INSPECTION PREPARATION
Design requirements for green infrastructure can vary by state and even by locality. Green
infrastructure designs are based on a number of detailed design calculations and data
(including geographic information system (GIS) data, modeling, soil tests, and other
information). Also, many green infrastructure designs include significant components that are
not easily visible to inspectors (e.g., soil media depth, underdrains). If as-built drawings are
Chapter 14 - Page 311
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
available, they can be used to assess whether an inspected control still meets the approved
design.
Inspection Preparation
To prepare for an inspection, inspectors should be familiar with the local requirements and
design standards. Inspectors can review permits, legal agreements (e.g., consent agreements),
state/local manuals for design specifications, operations and maintenance manuals, previous
inspection reports, and enforcement orders. Though consent decrees and NPDES permits
typically authorize the permit authority to access the subject facility, inspectors need to follow
the entry procedures in this inspection manual.
On the day of the inspection, inspectors should bring inspection forms or checklists, site plans,
maps, and a camera. In some cases, a soil probe to check soil compaction and composition may
be useful. Document observations through photographs and using the appropriate inspection
form or checklist. Additional information may be obtained from interviews of local residents
and/or business owners (who may have observed how the green infrastructure control
functions under various weather conditions).
The University of Minnesota has developed an online guidance ("Developing an Assessment
Program," a chapter in Stormwater Treatment: Assessment and Maintenance) to help
inspectors assess the performance of and schedule maintenance for stormwater controls
(Gulliver et al., 2010). This online manual can be found at
http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/.
CONSIDERATIONS ON INSPECTION TIMING
When possible, inspectors should schedule green infrastructure inspections during the
following timeframes to better observe performance:
During or immediately after a rain event. Conducting inspections during or right after a rain
event (within 24 hours) will allow the inspector to view the green infrastructure control in
operation, and make it easier to see if the control is functioning as designed. For example,
inspections during a rain event allow an inspector to see where the stormwater flows and
whether stormwater is bypassing controls. Most controls are designed to drain all stormwater
within 24-72 hours, so standing water that has not drained three days after a rain event could
indicate that maintenance is required for that infiltration control.
During spring, summer and fall. Spring, summer, and fall are probably the best times to inspect
green infrastructure practices in most regions. Winter conditions can impact the vegetation in a
green infrastructure control, which can look significantly different than during spring/summer.
Also, snow cover in winter months in some areas can make inspecting green infrastructure
controls very difficult.
After construction. Inspectors should be aware that vegetation in certain green infrastructure
controls can take several years to become fully established. An inspection soon after
installation is complete can allow an inspector to more easily see inlets, outlets and other
Chapter 14 - Page 312
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
aspects of the control, but vegetation may be sparse while it becomes established. Therefore,
depending on the control, it may be best to inspect green infrastructure practices multiple
times, both soon after installation and once vegetation is well-established to get a full picture of
how practices are performing.
TYPES OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This chapter details infiltration controls, permeable pavement controls, rainwater harvesting
systems and green roofs, as these are the most common types of green infrastructure controls
that an inspector would investigate. There are many other types of stormwater and green
infrastructure controls that an inspector may see in the field, and the inspection techniques
described in this chapter may be applied to many of these controls as well.
Many times, multiple controls are integrated into a site and designed synergistically. Exhibit
14-2 depicts a typical site plan with green infrastructure controls annotated.
pe-frneab-Je
pavement
bioswale
bioretention
pcfinpabip
bioiWale
blorcti-ndon
bio&wale*
bl atfctentl&n
Exhibit 14-2. Multiple Green Infrastructure Controls on a Developed Site
(Source: Dorman et al., 2013)
To help educate inspectors on typical green infrastructure control performance, Table 14-1
provides a site selection matrix based on the desired function of the green infrastructure
practice. It also includes pollutant reduction estimates and comparative costs.
Chapter 14 - Page 313
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 14-1. Sample Design Management Practice Selection Matrix According to Site
Characteristics (Source: Modified from Dorman etal.» 2013)
Attribute
Infiltration
Control
Permeable
Pavement
Rainwater
Harvesting
Green Roof
Typical contributing drainage
area (acres)
<5
varies
Rooftop
Rooftop
Practice slope
<2%
<2%
N/A
N/A
Pollutant Removal
Sediments
High
High
Pollutant removal
provided by
downstream BMP
Typically, water quality
is not improved by
green roofs (although
volume reduction can
reduce total loads).
Nutrients
Medium
Low
Trash
High
High
Metals
High
High
Bacteria
High
Medium
Oil and Grease
High
Medium
Organics
High
Low
Runoff volume reduction
High
High
Varies based on
cistern size and
water demand
High
Peak flow control
Medium
Medium
Medium
Construction costs
Low to
medium
Medium to
high
Low to medium
High
O&M costs
Low to
medium
Medium
Low to medium
Low to medium
B. INFILTRATION CONTROLS
DESCRIPTION
Infiltration controls are engineered systems designed to use temporary surface and
underground storage to capture and hold stormwater on-site for enough time to allow a
designed stormwater volume to evapotranspire, percolate, and filter into the ground, reducing
or eliminating surface runoff depending on the regulatory requirements at the site. Infiltration
utilizing landscaped areas, including bioretention, rain gardens and bioswales, typically consists
of a combination of some or all of the following elements: a flow-regulating structure (such as a
level spreader that slows and spreads the flow out into a control), a pretreatment element
(such as a vegetated filter strip), an engineered soil mix planting bed, vegetation, and an
outflow-regulating structure. In some places, bioretention (Exhibit 14-3 and Exhibit 14-4) is
defined as an engineered structure while rain gardens are simpler structures with no formal
engineering and designed/installed by a homeowner. Infiltration controls are designed to hold
water for a specific amount of time and remove many of the pollutants through a variety of
chemical, physical and biological processes, in a manner similar to natural ecosystems.
Infiltration can occur at both large and small sites. In addition to providing temporary storage
that delays the timing of stormwater to waterways, infiltration provides effective
treatment/capture for such pollutants as sediments, nutrients, trash, metals, bacteria, oil and
grease, and organics. Infiltration practices that include trees have the added benefits of greater
Chapter 14 - Page 314
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
evapotranspiration and water uptake arid reduction of energy demand by providing summer
shade to buildings.
Infiltration systems are versatile stormwater management practices that can be readily adapted
to parking lot islands; street medians; residential, commercial and industrial campus
landscaping; and urban and suburban green spaces and corridors.
ppmved inlet gratR
mulch
(2"-3" typical)
horizontal shelf
(12* rrin typical)
subgradc
temptnaiy puridmy depth
lypiciilI
scarify finished sub grade
aid incorporate compost
into loose sub grade
(3'-6~ depth typical)
max
cut slope
(1:" typical)
flush concrete curb
("10' width typir.sl)
aggregate fifter and
beading layer
optional undftr-drain
(elevated drain preferred)
Exhibit 14-3. Example Cross-section of Bioretention with Primary Design Elements
(under-drain is optional) (Source: ahbl, 2012)
Minimum freeboard
0.2 feet from maximum
ponding depth
Maximum ponded
Grass filter water depth (specific
Ground cover
or mulch layer
. Sheet flow stabilization to Plant so'l texture)
.-V.Vn ;
Limit of
pavement
Near vertical up
sidewalls =
5' min.
:
2-4' min.
3:1 max.
slope
-Planting soil
Bioretention area -
IN-SITU Material
SaturatedPermeability
Greater than 0.5 inches per hour
Exhibit 14-4. Example Primary Design Elements of a Bioretention Facility (Source: pgder, 1999)
Chapter 14 - Page 315
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DESIGN OF INFILTRATION CONTROLS
Infiltration controls are designed to collect stormwater flows that temporarily collect on the
surface in a ponding area. The stormwater then infiltrates or filters through a media layer
where it either enters the subsurface soil over 24-72 hours, or is collected by an underdrain
(perforated pipe below the media layer) for discharge to a storm drain or waterbody. Typical
components of an infiltration control include:
Site applicability—Infiltration controls should generally be at least 10 feet away from any
structure (e.g., buildings and parking lots), with a slope away from the structure.
Inlets—An inlet can consist of a curb cut, a flow spreading device such as a stone or gravel
diaphragm that distributes stormwater runoff across the length of the control, a grass filter
strip, or a similar device.
Outlet—An outlet can take many different forms, such as a riser structure or a curb cut/inlet
that discharges stormwater once it exceeds the maximum ponding depth of the control.
Controls can also be designed as a bypass system where flow does not enter the system once
the maximum ponding depth is exceeded. It is important to review the site plans to determine
if the controls are designed as a flow through or bypass system.
Pretreatment—To minimize clogging of the control device, infiltration controls need
pretreatment, especially in drainage areas with excessive sediment (such as construction areas
or unstabilized slopes). Pretreatment measures, if needed, can include sediment forebays, grass
channels, level spreaders, or gravel diaphragms.
Soil media—Soil media mixes vary but generally include a mixture of largely course sand (~85
percent), fines (silt and clay ~10 percent), and organic media (~5 percent).
Vegetation—Infiltration controls can include a wide variety of suitable vegetation, from turf
grass to shrubs or trees and should be based on the geographic location. Many jurisdictions
recommend using hearty, drought-tolerant native plants to increase survival rates.
Underdrain—Consisting of perforated pipe beneath the media layer, underdrains convey
excess stormwater that cannot be infiltrated into the soil within 24-72 hours, generally to the
storm or combined sewer system or to a swale, stream or other surface water.
Mulch—Infiltration control designs often include specification for 1-2 inches of mulch to help
retain soil moisture, provide a slow release of nutrients to plants, and shade out weed growth.
Over mulching can "burn" vegetation and limit storage capacity.
Typical maintenance—The primary maintenance requirement for vegetated infiltration
controls is regular plant, soil, and mulch layer maintenance to ensure a healthy vegetation
system that promotes infiltration, storage, and pollutant removal. A healthy and densely
vegetated system should be free of excess sediment and trash, and a typical system should
drain within 72 hours after a storm event.
Chapter 14 - Page 316
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
INSPECTING INFILTRATION CONTROLS
There are several issues that inspectors should look for when inspecting infiltration controls.
These include:
Inlet—Improper grading at the inlet could impede flow to the control.
Vegetation/media/mulch—Controls that lack vegetation may indicate poor maintenance
practices. Lack of mulch could allow erosion and too much mulch could inhibit plant growth.
Outlet—An outlet that is too low may allow the water to short-circuit the control and reduce its
effectiveness.
Appendix 2, "Infiltration Control Inspection Form," is a sample post-construction inspection
form that could be used when inspecting infiltration controls. Inspections should include a
review of any available operation logs and maintenance plans.
COMMON INFILTRATION CONTROL ISSUES
Common issues and challenges associated with infiltration controls include:
Poor design or placement of outlet
Photo 14-1. An infiltration basin may be poorly sited or
poorly designed to the extent that it is unable to retain and
infiltrate stormwater. In the photo above, the outlet is too
low as evidenced by the scour path from the curb cut to the
grate. This could indicate that sediment is being carried into
the drain and that little water is being retained and
absorbed. Possible solution: consider adding diffuser along
scour path and/or raising the level of the grate. (Credit: EPA
Region 5)
Chapter 14 - Page 317
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Management practice impeding
function of infiltration control
Photo 14-2, Bioswale treated with herbicide accidentally.
Vegetation is sparse, which may allow erosion. Consider
reseeding or replanting and providing adequate signage in
English and Spanish to ensure the practice is not continually
treated with herbicide. (Credit: EPA Region 5)
Improper grading towards infiltration control
Photo 14-3. Inappropriate grading is another common design
flaw in infiltration-based control practices. If a parking lot,
street or other impervious surface is not properly graded
towards the control or is bypassing the control, the BMP is not
serving its intended purpose. In the photo above, the wet spot
on the pavement indicates either poor grading in the
installation or poor drainage by the control. Consider
adjusting the grade. (Credit: EPA Region 5)
Chapter 14 - Page 318
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Outlet set too low
Photo 14-4. If the outlet is set too low, then stormwater will
not pond and very little water will infiltrate, as it is designed to
do. (Credit: John Kosco, Tetra Tech)
The City of Seattle has developed a Green Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual
(Seattle, 2009) that provides photographs arid level of service categories for different
maintenance levels. These photographs and maintenance levels can educate inspectors on
different infiltration control issues. Illustrated examples of problems associated with flow
control structures can be found at
https://www.seattle.gOv/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu02_0
20023.pdf.
C. PERMEABLE PAVEMENT CONTROLS
DESCRIPTION
Permeable pavement combines stormwater infiltration, storage, and a structural pavement
consisting of a permeable pavement layer underlain by a storage/infiltration bed. Permeable
pavement has not been thoroughly tested on high speed roads in extreme weather conditions,
although it has been successfully applied for low speed residential streets, parking lots, parking
lanes and roadway shoulders (DDOE, 2013). The permeable pavement layer can consist of
pervious concrete, porous asphalt, or various types of interlocking pavers, which are each
summarized below (EPA, 2009):
Pervious concrete—Achieves porosity by reducing the number of fines in the mix, giving the
concrete surface a much coarser appearance compared to standard impervious concrete.
Chapter 14 - Page 319
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
CONCRETE
CURB
FINISH ©RAPE
PERVIOUS
CONCRETE
COURSE
©RANULAR FLL
¦compacted
SUBSRADE
Exhibit 14-5. Example Pervious Concrete Cross-section (Source: EPA, 2009)
Porous asphalt— Like pervious concrete, achieves its porosity by eliminating the fine particles
from its mix specification, allowing water to flow through it rather than over it.
FMSM GRADE
forous bituminous
ASPHALT
CHOKER BASE
COURSE
COURSE
GRANULAR FLL
NON-WOVEN
6E0-TEXTLE FABRSC
FLTER SOIL
UNCOMP ACTED
SUBGRADE
Exhibit 14-6. Example Porous Asphalt Cross-section (Source: EPA, 2009)
Permeable paver blocks—Manufactured units that interlock to create a durable pavement. Void
spaces between units are filled with permeable materials such as pea gravel or sand to allow
surface water to infiltrate.
Chapter 14 - Page 320
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
3JBSRADE
Exhibit 14-7. Example Permeable Paver Blocks Cross-section (Source: EPA, 2009)
CONCRETE CURB
FNSrt 6RADE
CONCRETE PAVER
BEDDINS &ANB
©COTEXTLE
AL0N6 PERMETER
COMPACTED
GRANULAR FLL
©EOTEXTLE
Grid pavers—Concrete grid paver (CGP) systems are composed of concrete blocks made porous
by eliminating finer particles in the concrete that creates voids inside the blocks; additionally,
the blocks are arranged to create voids between blocks. Plastic turf reinforcing grids (PTRG) are
plastic grids that add structural support to the topsoil and reduce compaction to maintain
permeability. Grass is encouraged to grow in PTRG, so the roots will help improve permeability
due to their root channels. Grid pavements provide a cool, green surface solution for vehicular
access lanes, emergency access areas, and overflow parking areas, and even residential
driveways.
mmm.
Exhibit 14-8. Grid Pavers—Concrete (left) and Plastic (right) (Credit: Tetra Tech)
Chapter 14 - Page 321
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DESIGN OF PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS AND PAVERS
The design components of a typical permeable pavement are described below. Note that the
specific design components can change based on the type of permeable pavement installed and
the local design standard requirements:
Inflow/Surface materials
As described above, there are several different types of surface materials for permeable
pavements, from pervious concrete to porous asphalt to grid pavers or paver blocks. Porous
asphalt and concrete mixes are similar to their impervious counterparts, but do not include the
finer grade particles. Interlocking pavers have openings that are filled with stone to create a
porous surface. Permeable pavements can accept runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces,
but the impervious area should not exceed three-to-five times the pervious area (some states
limit even more or prohibit the impervious area that can discharge to permeable pavements).
Storage
In addition to distributing mechanical loads, coarse aggregate laid beneath porous surfaces is
designed to store stormwater prior to infiltration into soils or discharging to a stormwater BMP.
The aggregate is wrapped in a non-woven geotextile to prevent migration of soil into the
storage bed and resultant clogging. In porous asphalt and porous paver applications, the
storage bed also has a choker course of smaller aggregate to separate the storage bed from the
surface course.
Infiltration/Outflow
Most of the stormwater that enters a permeable pavement system is infiltrated, however,
these systems are often designed with an outflow to prevent flooding or standing water from
larger storms. The outflow can be a perforated pipe system, or a positive outflow that consists
of a stone buffer that connects to the stone sub-based under the permeable pavement and
allows a path for excess water to flow out of the system.
INSPECTING PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS
The primary issue with permeable pavements and pavers is clogging, which can slow infiltration
rates or even result in surface ponding. Permeable pavements should not receive runoff from
disturbed or vegetated areas—the sediment can quickly clog the system.
Spills can be significant problems on permeable pavements because of the potential for
groundwater contamination and the difficult in cleaning up spills on permeable pavement (as
opposed to cleaning up spills on impervious concrete or asphalt). Inspectors should always look
for evidence of spills on or near permeable pavements.
Permeable pavements are designed to drain stormwater quickly—any standing water on a
permeable pavement typically indicates a problem with the control. Also, permeable pavement
should have signage (Exhibit 14-9) to ensure that maintenance staff do not spread chemicals
and to help educate the public.
Chapter 14 - Page 322
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
POR-OUS
ASPHALT
DO NOT
SPREAD SAND
OR "SALT
Exhibit 14-9. Porous Asphalt Signage (Credit: Tetra Tech)
Appendix AA provides a sample post-construction inspection form that could be used to inspect
permeable pavement. Inspections should include a review of any available operation logs and
maintenance plans.
COMMON PERMEABLE PAVEMENT ISSUES
Common issues and challenges associated with permeable pavements include:
Excess sediment on permeable pavement
Photo 14-5. Sediment from the impervious parking is entering the
permeable pavement area. This photo also indicates improper
grading, with the flow accumulating in one area. (Credit: Bill Hunt,
NCSU)
Chapter 14 - Page 323
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Sediment accumulation between paver blocks
Photo 14-6,Fine mud and silt in between permeable pavers
hindering rapid infiltration. (Credit: Bill Hunt, NCSU)
Excessive sediment on permeable pavement
Photo 14-7. Sediment on permeable pavement clogs void spaces
thus slowing infiltration. Important to protect permeable pavement
from construction stormwater run-off. (Credit: Bill Hunt, NCSU)
Chapter 14 - Page 324
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Sediment/poor grading
Photo 14-8. Visible silt on the permeable pavement surface,
indicates that water is collecting before infiltrating. Maintenance,
such as sweeping or vacuuming is needed. (Credit: EPA Region 5)
Vegetation between paver blocks
Photo 14-9. Weeds and moss between pavers may indicate a
sediment problem. Herbicides should not be used on
permeable pavement systems. (Credit: Bill Hunt, NCSU)
D. RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS
DESCRIPTION
Rainwater harvesting systems collect rainwater that falls on rooftops or other impervious
surfaces and conveys it to above- or below-ground storage tanks, where it can be used between
rain events as non-potable water for irrigation or other uses. This technology reduces potable
water use while also reducing stormwater discharge off-site. Rain barrels are typically used in
residential applications and connect to a rooftop downspout to collect rainwater for irrigation
purposes. Cisterns are typically large containers or tanks that hold significantly more
Chapter 14 - Page 325
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
stormwater volume than a rain barrel. Cisterns are more commonly used in commercial
applications and can store stormwater for irrigation or a variety of other uses, including re-use
inside the building.
Non-potable uses of harvested rainwater may include the following:
• Landscape irrigation
• Exterior washing (e.g., car washes, building facades, sidewalks, street sweepers, and fire
trucks)
• Flushing of toilets and urinals
• Fire suppression (i.e., sprinkler systems)
• Supply for cooling towers, evaporative coolers, fluid coolers, and chillers
• Supplemental water for closed loop systems and steam boilers
• Replenishment of water features and water fountains
• Distribution to a green wall or living wall system
• Laundry
DESIGN OF RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS
There are seven primary design components of a rainwater harvesting system:
1. Contributing drainage area (CDA) or CDA surface
2. Collection and conveyance system (i.e., gutter and downspouts)
3. Pretreatment, including prescreening and first flush diverters
4. Storage system (cisterns)
5. Water quality treatment
6. Distribution systems
7. Overflow, filter path or secondary stormwater retention practice
Contributing Drainage Area (CDA) or CDA Surface
When considering CDA surfaces, note that smooth, non-porous materials will drain more
efficiently. Slow drainage of the CDA leads to poor rinsing and a prolonged first flush, which can
decrease water quality. Some roofing materials such as tar and gravel, asbestos shingle and
treated cedar shakes may leach toxic chemicals and are not suitable CDA surfaces. Cedar shake
and other wooden roofs are the least efficient surfaces in regards to rainwater harvesting
because they are porous while metal roofs are the most efficient.
Collection and Conveyance System
The collection and conveyance system consists of the gutters, downspouts, and pipes that
channel rainfall into cisterns. Gutters and downspouts should be designed as they would for a
building without a rainwater harvesting system. Aluminum, round-bottom gutters and round
Chapter 14 - Page 326
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
downspouts are generally recommended for rainwater harvesting. Gutters and downspouts
should be kept clean and free of debris and rust.
Pretreatment
Pre-filtration is required to keep sediment, leaves, contaminants, and other debris from the
system. Leaf screens and gutter guards are typically used for pre-filtration of small systems,
although direct water filtration is preferred. The purpose of pre-filtration is to significantly cut
down on maintenance by preventing organic buildup in the cistern, thereby decreasing
microbial food sources.
Diverted flows (i.e., first flush diversion and/or overflow from the filter, if applicable) should be
directed to an appropriate best management practice (BMP) or to a settling tank to remove
sediment and pollutants prior to discharge from the site.
Various pretreatment devices are described below;
• First Flush Diverters direct the initial pulse of rainfall away from the cistern. While leaf
screens effectively remove larger debris such as leaves, twigs, and blooms from
harvested rainwater, first flush diverters can be used to remove smaller contaminants
such as dust, pollen, and bird and rodent feces. First flush diverters are typically passive
devices that retain a relatively small amount of stormwater that is first captured from
the roof system before the remaining roof runoff is directed into the rainwater
harvesting system.
• Leaf screens are mesh screens installed over either the gutter or downspout to separate
leaves and other large debris from rooftop runoff. Leaf screens should be regularly
cleaned to be effective; if not maintained, they can become clogged and prevent
rainwater from flowing into the cisterns.
Exhibit 14-10. First Flush Diverter (Credit: ncsu BAE)
Chapter 14 - Page 327
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
• Roof washers are placed just ahead of cisterns and are used to filter small debris
from harvested rainwater. Roof washers consist of a cistern, usually between 25 and
50 gallons in size, with leaf strainers and a filter with openings as small as 30
microns. The filter functions to remove very small particulate matter from harvested
rainwater. All roof washers should be cleaned on a regular basis.
• Hydrodynamic Separator can be used to filter rainwater from larger CDAs.
Exhibit 14-11. Roof Washer (Credit: ncsu BAE)
Storage System (Cisterns)
The cistern provides the storage for a rainwater harvesting system. Rain barrels typically hold
about 55 gallons, but cistern capacities generally range from 250 to 30,000 gallons, but can be
as large as 100,000 gallons or more for larger projects. Multiple cisterns can be placed adjacent
to each other and connected with pipes to balance water levels and to tailor the storage
volume needed. Typical rainwater harvesting system capacities for residential use range from
1,500 to 5,000 gallons. Cistern volumes are calculated to meet the water demand and
stormwater storage volume retention objectives.
While the common cistern has a cylindrical shape, cisterns can be made of many materials and
configured in various shapes, depending on the type used and the site conditions where the
cisterns will be installed. For example, configurations can be rectangular, L-shaped, or step
vertically to match the topography of a site.
Water Quality Treatment
Depending upon the collection surface, method of dispersal and proposed use for the
harvested rainwater, a water quality treatment device may be necessary to clean the harvested
rainwater.
Chapter 14 - Page 328
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Distribution Systems
Rain barrel systems and small cisterns can use a gravity fed distribution system. Most
distribution systems for larger cisterns need a pump to convey harvested rainwater from the
cistern to its final destination, whether inside the building, an automated irrigation system, or
gradually discharged to a secondary stormwater treatment practice. The rainwater harvesting
system should be equipped with an appropriately sized pump that produces sufficient pressure
for all end-uses. A backflow preventer should be used to separate harvested rainwater from the
main potable water distribution lines.
Overflow
An overflow mechanism is needed as a component of the rainwater harvesting system design
to handle an individual storm event or multiple storms in succession that exceed the capacity of
the cistern. Overflow pipe(s) should have a capacity equal to or greater than the inflow pipe(s)
and have a diameter and slope sufficient to drain the cistern while maintaining an adequate
freeboard height. The overflow pipe(s) should be screened to prevent access to the cistern by
small mammals and birds. All overflows from the system should be directed to an acceptable
flow path that will not cause erosion.
INSPECTING RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS
Inspectors should look for obvious defects with the rainwater harvesting system such as tanks
that are leaking or cracked, inflow controls that are not working properly (such as downspouts
not properly connected to the tank), and improper maintenance (including sediment in the tank
or debris in the filters or screens).
If available, inspectors should also review maintenance and use records to determine if the
rainwater harvesting system is being used properly. For example, is the system largely empty
before large rain events? Is the water being used as soon as practical after rain events?
Appendix AB, "Rainwater Harvest Inspection Form," provides a sample post-construction
inspection form that could be used to inspect rainwater harvesting systems. Inspections should
include a review of any available operation logs and maintenance plans.
COMMON RAINWATER HARVESTING ISSUES
Common issues and challenges associated with rainwater harvesting systems include:
Chapter 14 - Page 329
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Overflowing rain barrel
Overflowing rain barrel. Consider larger capacity cistern or
higher volume overflow pipe. The overflow pipe may also be
clogged. Overflow could cause water problems inside the
adjacent building. (Credit: Innovative Water Solutions)
Improper maintenance of gutters
Gutters, which drain to cistern, in need of cleaning
(Credit: Jason Wright, Tetra Tech)
Chapter 14 - Page 330
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Screen maintenance
This screen is clear, but inspectors should check filters to
determine if they are clogged (Credit: Tetra Tech)
Overflow devices is clogged or in need of repair
Check overflow features to determine if they are working (Credit:
Tetra Tech)
E. GREEN ROOFS
DESCRIPTION
Green, living, or vegetated, roofs are alternative roof surfaces that typically consist of a layer of
soil/media and vegetation over waterproofing and drainage materials on a conventional flat or
pitched roof to absorb and retain water, like vegetation and soil on the ground.
Design variants include extensive and intensive green roofs. Extensive green roofs have a much
shallower growing media layer that typically ranges from 3 to 6 inches thick. Intensive green
Chapter 14 - Page 331
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
roofs have a growing media layer that ranges from 6 to 48 inches thick. Green roofs are
typically not designed to provide stormwater detention of larger storms (e.g., 2-year, 15-year)
although some intensive green roof systems may be designed to meet these criteria. Green roof
designs may be combined with other green infrastructure practices elsewhere on-site to control
large storms.
DESIGN OF GREEN ROOFS
Standard specifications for North American green roofs continue to evolve, and no universal
material specifications exist that cover the wide range of available roof types and system
components. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has issued several
overarching green roof standards, which should be consulted when assessing the design of
green roofs. Designers and reviewers should also fully understand manufacturer specifications
for each system component, particularly if they choose to install proprietary "complete" green
roof systems or modules. Common components in a green roof are illustrated in Exhibit 14-12.
VEGETATION
GROWTH MEDIA
FILTER LAYER
DRAINAGE LAYER
PROTECTION LAYER
WATERPROOF MEMBRANE
ROOF STRUCTURE
Exhibit 14-12. Extensive Green Roof Illustration (Source: SEMCOG, 2008)
Roof/Deck Layer
The roof deck layer is the foundation of a green roof. It may be composed of concrete, wood,
metal, plastic, gypsum, or a composite material. The type of deck material determines the
strength, load bearing capacity, longevity, and potential need for insulation in the green roof
system.
Leak Detection System
The leak detection system is an optional system used to detect and locate leaks in the
waterproof membrane. Leak detection systems are often installed above the deck layer to
identify leaks, minimize leak damage through timely detection, and locate leak locations.
Waterproof Membrane
All green roof systems should include an effective and reliable waterproofing layer to prevent
water damage through the deck layer. The membrane should be designed to convey water
horizontally across the roof surface to drains or gutter and may also act as a root barrier. A
wide range of waterproofing materials can be used, including hot applied rubberized asphalt,
Chapter 14 - Page 332
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
built up bitumen, modified bitumen, thermoplastic membranes, polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
thermoplastic olefin membrane (TPO), and elastomeric membranes (EPDM). The waterproofing
layer needs to be 100 percent waterproof and have an expected life span as long as any other
element of the green roof system. The waterproofing material may be loose laid or bonded
(recommended). If loose laid, overlapping and additional construction techniques should be
used to avoid water migration.
Insulation Layer
Many green roofs contain an insulation layer, usually located above, but sometimes below, the
waterproofing layer. The insulation increases the energy efficiency of the building and/or
protects the roof deck (particularly for metal roofs). According to Green Roof Plants: A Resource
and Planting Guide (Snodgrass et al., 2006), the trend is to install insulation on the outside of
the building, in part to avoid mildew problems. The designer should consider the use of open or
closed cell insulation depending on whether the insulation layer is above or below the
waterproofing layer (and thus exposed to wetness), with closed cell insulation recommended
for use above the waterproofing layer.
Root Barrier
Another layer of a green roof system, which can be either above or below the insulation layer
depending on the system, is a root barrier that protects the waterproofing membrane from
root penetration. Chemical root barriers or physical root barriers that have been impregnated
with pesticides, metals, or other chemicals that could leach into stormwater runoff, should be
avoided in systems where the root barrier layer will contact water or allow water to pass
through the barrier.
Drainage Layer
A drainage layer is then placed between the root barrier and the growing media to quickly
remove excess water from the vegetation root zone. The selection and thickness of the
drainage layer type is an important design decision that is governed by the desired stormwater
storage capacity, the required conveyance capacity, and the structural capacity of the rooftop.
Depth of the drainage layer is generally 0.25 to 1.5 inches thick for extensive designs. The
drainage layer usually consists of synthetic or inorganic materials (e.g., gravel, high density
polyethylene (HDPE)) that can retain water and provide efficient drainage. A wide range of
prefabricated water cups or plastic modules can be used, as well as a traditional system of
protected roof drains, conductors, and roof leaders.
Filter Fabric
A semi-permeable needled polypropylene filter fabric is normally placed between the drainage
layer and the growing media to prevent the media from migrating into the drainage layer and
clogging it. The filter fabric should not impede the downward migration of water into the
drainage layer.
Growth Media
For an extensive green roof, the growing media is typically 3 to 6 inches deep (minimum 3
inches). The recommended growing media for extensive green roofs is typically composed of
Chapter 14 - Page 333
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
approximately 70 to 80 percent lightweight inorganic materials, such as expanded slates, shales
or clays; pumice; scoria; or other similar materials. The remaining media should contain no
more than 30 percent organic matter. The percentage of organic matter should be limited,
since it can leach nutrients into the runoff from the roof and clog the permeable filter fabric.
Media should also provide sufficient nutrients and water holding capacity to support the
proposed plant materials. The growing media typically has a maximum water retention of
approximately 30 percent.
The composition of growing media for intensive green roofs may be different, and it is often
much greater in depth (e.g., 6 to 48 inches). If trees are included in the green roof planting plan,
the growing media should be sufficient to provide enough soil volume for the root structure of
mature trees.
Plant Materials
The top layer of an extensive green roof typically consists of plants that are non-native, slow-
growing, shallow-rooted, perennial, and succulent. These plants are chosen for their ability to
withstand harsh conditions at the roof surface. A mix of base ground covers (usually Sedum
species) and accent plants can be used to enhance the visual amenity value of a green roof. The
design should provide for temporary, manual, and/or permanent irrigation or watering
systems, depending on the green roof system and types of plants. For most application, some
type of watering system should be accessible for initial establishment or drought periods. The
use of water efficient designs and/or use of non-potable sources are strongly encouraged.
INSPECTING GREEN ROOFS
Inspectors of green roofs should look for the following issues:
• Dead or dying vegetation
• Roof drains, scuppers, and gutters are overgrown or have organic matter deposits
• Evidence of erosion or loss of media
• Standing water
Other issues with green roofs can be more difficult to assess on a typical NPDES inspection. For
example, improper installation, excessive dead loads that exceed what the building can handle,
root penetration and leaks can be difficult to detect without extensive knowledge of the
approved design and construction. However, inspectors can review maintenance records, which
may identify some of these issues.
Caution should be taken when inspecting green roofs that are sloped or are at high elevations.
Necessary safety measures should be taken at all times.
Appendix AC, "Green Roof Inspection Form," provides a sample post-construction inspection
form that could be used to inspect green roofs. Inspections should include a review of any
available operation logs and maintenance plans.
Chapter 14 - Page 334
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
COMMON GREEN ROOF ISSUES
Common issues and challenges associated with green roofs include:
Poor vegetation on green roof
Roof in Florida with poorly maintained plants
(Credit: Kevin Songer)
Green roof with adequate vegetation (Credit: EPA Region 5)
F. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on green infrastructure,
AHBL, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington State University Extension. (2012). Low Impact
Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Available at:
http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/LID/20121221_LIDmanual_FINAL_secure.pdf
City of Richmond Stormwater Utility. (1999). Annual BMP Operation & Maintenance Inspection
for Vegetated Roofs. Available at;
http://www.richmondgov.com/DPU/DOCUiVIENTS/BIVIPQUANTITY_VEGETATED_ROOFJNS
PECTION CHECKLIST.PDF
Chapter 14 - Page 335
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
City of Toronto. (2010). Toronto Building Green Roof Inspection Report Checklist. Available at:
https://wwwl.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/zoning environment/files/pdf/Gr
een_Roof_lnspection_Report_Checklist.pdf
District Department of the Environment (DDOE). (2013). 2013 Stormwater Management
Guidebook. District of Columbia: Prepared by Center for Watershed Protection.
Dorman, T., M. Frey, J. Wright, B. Wardynski, J. Smith, B. Tucker, J. Riverson, A. Teague, and K.
Bishop. (2013). San Antonio River Basin Low Impact Development Technical Design Guidance
Manual, Volume 1. San Antonio, TX: San Antonio River Authority.
Gulliver, J.S., A.J. Erickson, and P.T. Weiss (editors). (2010). Stormwater Treatment: Assessment
and Maintenance. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA). (Last modified 2015). Green Roof Maintenance
Inspection Checklist. Available at:
https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Green_roof_maintenance_inspection_
checklist
Prince George's County, Maryland Department of Environmental Resources (PGDER). (1999).
Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach. Available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/lidnatl.pdf.
Seattle Public Utilities. (2009). Green Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual.
Available at:
https://www.seattle.gOv/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu0
2_020023.pdf
Snodgrass, E.C. and L.L. Snodgrass. (2006). Green Roof Plants: A Resource and Planting Guide.
Timber Press (1900).
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2008). Low Impact Development
Manual for Michigan: A Design Guide for Implemented and Reviewers. Available at:
http://www.semcog.org/desktopmodules/SEMCOG.Publications/GetFile.ashx?filename=Lo
wlmpactDevelopmentManualforMichiganSeptember2008.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2007). Part 630 Hydrology: National Engineering
Handbook, Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil Groups. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (No Date). iTree Tools for Assessing and Managing
Community Forests. Available at: http://www.itreetools.org/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Long-
Term Control Plan. EPA 832-B-95-002. Office of Water.
Chapter 14 - Page 336
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An
Integrated Design Approach. EPA 841-B-00-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). National Management Measures to Control
Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. EPA-841-B-05-004. Office of Water, Nonpoint
Source Control Branch.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. EPA 841-F-07-006. Office of Water, Nonpoint
Source Control Branch.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Green Streetscapes Study: Oakman Boulevard,
Detroit, Michigan. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Brownfields and
Land Revitalization.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a). Green Infrastructure Strategic Agenda 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Block-Scale Green Infrastructure Design for the
Historic Northwest Quadrant, City of Beaufort. 2012 Green Infrastructure Technical
Assistance Program.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013c). Stormwater to Street Trees - Engineering Urban
Forests for Stormwater Management. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. EPA
841-B-13-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014a). Greening CSO Plans: Planning and Modeling
Green Infrastructure for Combined Sewer Overflow Control. Office of Water, Office of
Research and Development, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Region
5. EPA 832-R-14-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014b). Green Infrastructure Website. Office of Water.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014c). Green Infrastructure for Climate Resiliency.
Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015a). Guidance for Reviewing Green Infrastructure
Components in Development Project Plans: Plan Review Checklists. 2014 Green
Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, City and County of Denver and Denver Urban
Flood Control District.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015b). Guidance for Inspecting and Maintaining Green
Infrastructure Practices. 2014 Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, City and
County of Denver and Denver Urban Flood Control District.
Chapter 14 - Page 337
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). (2010). Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual: Volume 3, Best Management Practices. Denver, Colorado: Water Resources
Publications, LLC.
Chapter 14 - Page 338
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 15-
CAFO PROGRAM INSPECTIONS
Contents
A. Overview of NPDES CAFO Program 341
Introduction 341
Background and History of the CAFO Regulations 341
NPDES CAFO Permits 352
Operations Covered by Subpart C—Dairy Cows and Cattle Other than Veal Calves
and by Subpart D—Swine, Poultry and Veal Calves 355
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) 359
Other Technology-Based Limitations that Apply to Discharges from CAFOs 359
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations and Standards 360
Requirements for the Land Application Area of Permitted Large CAFOs 360
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements of NPDES Permits for
CAFOs 365
B. Preparing for the CAFO Or AFO Inspection 371
Selection of Facilities for Inspection 371
Compliance Determination Strategy 372
CAFO Inspector Responsibilities and Preparation Activities 374
CAFO Inspection Plan 386
C. The CAFO Inspection—Facility Tour 388
Arrival On-Site 388
Opening Conference 391
Record and On-Site Document Review 393
Facility Tour 394
D. The CAFO Inspection—Records Review and the NMP 411
Unpermitted Large CAFOs 411
Records for Permitted Large CAFOs 414
E. Closing Conference 424
F. After the CAFO or AFO Inspection 425
Communication With The CAFO Operator 426
G. References 428
Chapter 15 - Page 339
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Tables
Table 15-1. Large CAFOs 345
Table 15-2. Medium CAFOs 347
Table 15-3. Information Required on NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2B 352
Table 15-4. Effluent Limitation Summary 354
Table 15-5. Required Records for Permitted Large CAFOs 366
Table 15-6. Required Records for Permitted Small and Medium CAFOs 368
Table 15-7. Example Inspection Focus for Compliance Determination Strategy Based on
Inspection Type 372
Table 15-8. Minimum Measures and Associated Records Applying to Unpermitted Large CAFOs 412
Table 15-9. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP Minimum
Measures i-v 416
Table 15-10. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP Minimum
Measures vi-viii 421
Associated Appendices
AD. Animal Industry Overview
AE. Management/Soil Science
AF. Biosecurity SOP
AG. Field and Personal Protective Equipment
AH. Mapping Tool (Region 5)
AI. Inspection Checklist
AJ. Regional Inspection Checklists
AK. Growth Stages of Field Crops
AL. Inspection Introduction Letter
AM. Sampling Procedures and Equipment
AN. Sample Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
AO. Detailed Review of Nutrient Management Plan Implementation
AP. Inspection Report Template (R7)
Chapter 15 - Page 340
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. OVERVIEW OF NPDES CAFO PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concentrated animal feeding
operation (CAFO) inspector may encounter facilities with no NPDES permit, facilities with a
state permit of some kind, and some facilities with NPDES permits. For facilities with NPDES
permits, the inspector must be familiar with the requirements of a CAFO permit and know how
to evaluate compliance. However, most facilities the inspector encounters will likely not have
an NPDES permit.
Inspections of permitted and unpermitted CAFOs can have some similarities, but are generally
very different. Throughout this chapter information relevant to each scenario is presented. If
the facilities that you inspect do not have NPDES permits, you may want to focus most of your
attention on the parts of the chapter dealing with unpermitted CAFOs. However, it is still
important for all CAFO inspectors to have a working knowledge of NPDES CAFO permits.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CAFO REGULATIONS
EPA began regulating the discharges of wastewater and manure from CAFOs in the 1970s. In
2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated the original CAFO regulations to
address changes in the animal agriculture industry sectors (Volume 68 of the Federal Register
(FR) 7176). EPA subsequently published revisions to the CAFO Rule in 2008 to address a 2005
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals (Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 2005) for the Second
Circuit in litigation challenging the 2003 regulatory updates (73 FR 70418).
At the time of the 2003 revised regulations, EPA estimated that animal feeding operations
(AFOs) annually produce more than 500 million tons of animal manure (U.S. DOA, 2007). The
term manure as used here and throughout the Manual refers to manure, litter, and process
wastewater. This manure can pose substantial risks to the environment and public health if
managed improperly. EPA projected in 2003 that the revised rule would result in annual
pollutant reductions of 56 million pounds of phosphorus (P), 110 million pounds of nitrogen (N),
and two billion pounds of sediment.
Today, there are slightly more than one million farms with livestock in the United States.11 EPA
estimates that about 212,000 of those farms are likely to be AFOs—operations where animals
are kept and raised in confinement. Although the number of AFOs has declined since 2003, the
total number of animals housed at AFOs has continued to grow because of expansion and
consolidation in the industry.
The NPDES regulations identify permitting requirements for AFOs that are classified as CAFOs
and that discharge. If CAFOs do not seek NPDES permit coverage, discharges from their land
11 The term manure as used here and throughout the Manual refers to manure, litter, and process wastewater.
Chapter 15 - Page 341
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
application areas only qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption if the CAFOs
implement and document basic nutrient management practices; see Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122.42(e)(l)(vi)-(ix). EPA generally expects that the nutrient
management requirements are being followed when a CAFO has developed and is
implementing a comprehensive nutrient management plan (CNMP) in accordance with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidance. For permitted CAFOs, nutrient management plans
(NMPs) developed and implemented as a condition of an NPDES permit must be based on
applicable technical standards for nutrient management established by the NPDES permitting
authority (40 CFR 412.4(c)(2)).
Definition: Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs), Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
To determine if an animal facility falls under the purview of the NPDES program, it is essential
to understand the definition of an AFO and a CAFO established in the regulations. This chapter
reflects the current NPDES regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) applicable to
CAFOs under the Clean Water Act (CWA), including revisions to the regulations that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized and published in the Federal Register (FR) in
2008 (40 CFR 122.23; 73 FR 70418). As a result of a challenge to the 2008 and subsequent Fifth
Circuit Court decision, EPA issued a "Compiled CAFO Final Rule" on July 30, 2012 to remove
vacated elements and to consolidate the 2008 and 2003 final CAFO rules into a single
document. Those requirements are collectively referred to in this chapter as the CAFO
regulations.
This section explains the definitions of an AFO and CAFO, it describes how the NPDES
regulations apply to permitted CAFOs and what those permits contain. In addition, the section
explains aspects of the NPDES regulations that may apply to large CAFOs even if they do not
have an NPDES permit.
When Congress passed the CWA in 1972, it specifically included the term concentrated animal
feeding operation in the definition of point source. CWA section 502(14). Before EPA defined
the CWA term concentrated animal feeding operations in the 1976 CAFO regulations, the 1974
ELGs for the Feedlots Point Source Category, formerly 40 CFR 412.11(b), defined a feedlot to
mean "a concentrated, confined animal or poultry growing operation for meat, milk or egg
production, or stabling, in pens or houses wherein the animals or poultry are fed at the place of
confinement and crop or forage growth or production is not sustained in the area of
confinement." Similarly, the support documentation for the ELG (see, for example, EPA's
Development Document for the Final Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (EPA,
2002)) distinguished between animals grown in feedlots and those grown in non-feedlot
situations. The development document defines feedlot using the following three conditions:
7. A high concentration of animals held in a small area for periods in conjunction with one of
the following purposes:
a. Production of meat.
b. Production of milk.
Chapter 15 - Page 342
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
c. Production of eggs.
d. Production of breeding stock.
e. Stabling of horses.
8. The transportation of feed to animals for consumption.
9. By virtue of the confinement of animals or poultry, the land or area will neither sustain
vegetation nor be available for crop or forage.
The 1976 rule defined which facilities were CAFOs, and therefore point sources under the CWA,
and established permitting requirements for CAFOs. EPA's 1976 definition of CAFO draws on
the definition of a CAFO from the 1974 feedlot definition. Although the definition of the term
CAFO was further revised in the 2003 CAFO regulations, the types of facilities covered by the
definition are nearly identical to those in the original definition of a feedlot.
A facility must first meet the definition of an AFO before it can be considered a CAFO. AFOs are
defined as, "operations where animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or
maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period and where vegetation is not
sustained in the confinement area during the normal growing season." 40 CFR 122.23(b)(1).
EPA interprets maintained to mean that the animals are confined in the same area where waste
is generated or concentrated. Areas where animals are maintained can include areas where
animals are fed and areas where they are watered, cleaned, groomed, milked, or medicated.
Regulatory Citation I
Animal feeding operation (AFO) means a lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where
the following conditions are met:
Animals have been, are or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any
12-month period.
AND
Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over
any portion of the lot or facility.
40 CFR 122.23(b)(1)
The first part of the regulatory definition of an AFO means that animals must be kept on the lot
or facility for a minimum of 45 days in a 12-month period. If an animal is confined for any
portion of a day, it is considered to be on the facility for a full day. For example, dairy cows that
are brought in from pasture for less than an hour to be milked are counted as being confined
(i.e., on the lot or facility) for the day. In addition, the same animals are not required to remain
on the lot for 45 days or more for the operation to be defined as an AFO. Rather, the first part
of the regulatory definition is met if some animals are fed or maintained on the lot or facility for
45 days out of any 12-month period. The 45 days do not have to be consecutive, and the 12-
month period does not have to correspond to the calendar year. For example, June 1 to the
following May 31 would constitute a 12-month period. Therefore, animal operations such as
stockyards, fairgrounds, and auction houses where animals may not be fed, but are confined
temporarily, may be AFOs.
Chapter 15 - Page 343
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Definition: "Sustained in the normal growing season"
The second part of the regulatory definition of an AFO distinguishes confinement areas from
pasture or grazing land. That part of the definition relates to the portion of the facility where
animals are confined and where natural forage or planted vegetation does not occur during the
normal growing season. Confinement areas might have some vegetative growth along the
edges while animals are present or during months when animals are kept elsewhere. If a facility
maintains animals in an area without vegetation, such as dirt lots with incidental vegetative
growth, the facility meets the second part of the AFO definition.
True pasture and rangeland operations are not considered AFOs because animals at those
operations are generally maintained in areas that sustain crops or forage growth during the
normal growing season. In some pasture-based operations, animals can freely wander in and
out of areas for food or shelter; that is not considered confinement. In general, an area is a
pasture if vegetation is maintained during the normal growing season. However, pasture and
grazing-based operations can also have confinement areas (e.g., feedlots, barns, milking
parlors, pens) that meet the definition of an AFO.
Incidental vegetation in a clear area of confinement would not exclude an operation from
meeting the definition of an AFO. In the case of a winter feedlot, the second part of the AFO
definition (i.e., no vegetation) is meant to be evaluated during the winter, when the animals are
confined. Animals from a grazing operation can be confined during winter months in a
confinement area that had vegetation during other parts of the year. If the animals are
confined for more than 45 days but not year-round and vegetation emerges in the spring when
animals are removed, the presence of vegetation does not prevent that feedlot from being
defined as an AFO because the vegetation is growing when animals are not present. In that
example, the feedlot will not sustain the vegetation that had emerged in spring once the
animals are moved back into the feedlot. Therefore, the facility in the example meets the
definition of an AFO. See Chapter 2 of EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA,
2012a) for more information and examples of animal feeding operations.
Definition: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
An AFO is a CAFO if it meets the regulatory definition of a large or medium CAFO (40 CFR
122.23 (b)(4) or (6)) or has been designated as a CAFO (40 CFR 122.23(c)) by the NPDES
permitting authority or by EPA. Note that some authorized states have adopted regulatory
definitions for CAFOs that are more inclusive and, therefore, broader in scope than EPA's
regulations. Those facilities are subject to requirements under state law but not under federal
law. See Chapter 2 of EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) for more
information and examples of concentrated animal feeding operations.
Types of Animal Operations Covered by CAFO Regulations
The CAFO regulations define a large CAFO based on the number of animals confined. Medium
CAFOs are defined as meeting specific criteria in addition to the number of animals confined,
and those criteria are discussed below. The animal types with specific threshold numbers for
the Large and Medium size categories identified in the regulations are cattle, dairy cows, veal
calves, swine, chickens, turkeys, ducks, horses, and sheep. An AFO that meets the small or
Chapter 15 - Page 344
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
medium size thresholds can be designated as a CAFO by the permitting authority if certain
criteria are met, including that the AFO is determined to be "a significant contributor of
pollutants to waters of the United States" (40 CFR 122.23(c)).
Animal Types Not Listed in CAFO Regulations
An operation confining any animal type (e.g., geese, emus, ostriches, bison, mink, alligators) not
explicitly mentioned in the NPDES regulations and for which there are no ELGs is subject to
NPDES permitting requirements for CAFOs if 1) it meets the definition of an AFO, and 2) if the
permitting authority designates it as a CAFO.
AFOs Defined as Large CAFOs
An AFO is a large CAFO if it stables or confines equal to or more than the number of animals
specified in Table 15-1 for 45 days or more in a 12-month period. The definition of a large CAFO
is based solely on the number of animals confined.
Table 15-1. Large CAFOs
Number of
Animals
Type of Animal
700
Mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry
1,000
Veal calves
1,000
Cattle, other than mature dairy cows or veal calves (Cattle includes but is not limited to
heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs.)
2,500
Swine, each weighing 55 pounds or more
10,000
Swine, each weighing less than 55 pounds
500
Horses
10,000
Sheep or lambs
55,000
Turkeys
30,000
Laying hens or broilers, if the AFO uses a liquid-manure handling system
125,000
Chickens (other than laying hens), if the AFO uses other than a liquid-manure handling
system
82,000
Laying hens, if the AFO uses other than a liquid-manure handling system
30,000
Ducks, if the AFO uses other than a liquid-manure handling system
5,000
Ducks, if the AFO uses a liquid-manure handling system
Source: 40 CFR 122.23(b)(4)
In determining whether the applicable Large CAFO threshold is satisfied, the number of animals
actually maintained is considered, not the capacity of the operation.
Practices Constituting Liquid-Manure Handling at Poultry Operations
The thresholds for chicken and duck AFOs in the CAFO definitions are based on the type of litter
or manure handling system being used. The two systems are either a liquid-manure handling
system or other-than-a-liquid-manure handling system. The animal number thresholds that
determine whether the system is a CAFO for a chicken or duck AFO using a liquid-manure
handling system are lower than the thresholds for CAFOs that use other-than-liquid-manure
handling systems.
Chapter 15 - Page 345
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
An AFO is considered to have a liquid-manure handling system if it uses pits, lagoons, flush
systems (usually combined with lagoons), or holding ponds, or has systems such as continuous
overflow watering, where the water contacts manure and litter. In addition, operations that
stack or pile manure in areas exposed to precipitation are considered to have liquid-manure
handling systems. That includes operations that remove litter from the confinement area and
stockpile or store it uncovered in remote locations for even one day.
However, permitting authorities may authorize some limited period of temporary storage of
litter of no more than 15 days that would not result in the facility meeting the definition of a
liquid-manure handling system (e.g., where time is needed to allow for contract hauling
arrangements and precipitation does not occur) (EPA, 2003). If litter is stockpiled beyond that
temporary period, the uncovered stockpile would constitute a liquid-manure handling system,
and the lower CAFO thresholds for chickens and ducks would apply (see Table 15-1 and Table
15-2).
Wet Lot and Dry Lot Duck Operations
Duck operations are considered to use a liquid-manure handling system if 1) the ducks are
raised outside with swimming areas or ponds or with a stream running through an open lot, or
2) the ducks are raised in confinement buildings where fresh or recycled water is used to flush
the manure to a lagoon, pond, or other storage structure. In addition, a duck operation that
stacks manure or litter as described above for other dry poultry operations is considered to
have a liquid-manure handling system.
Dry-lot duck operations include those that 1) use confinement buildings and handle manure
and litter exclusively as dry material; 2) use a building with a mesh or slatted floor over a
concrete pit from which manure is scraped into a solid manure storage structure; or 3) use dry
bedding on a solid floor. Dry-lot duck operations are generally considered to be "operations
that use other than a liquid-manure handling system."
Definition: Production Area
Production area means that part of an AFO that includes the animal confinement area, the
manure storage area, the raw materials storage area, and the waste containment areas. The
animal confinement area includes but is not limited to open lots, housed lots, feedlots,
confinement houses, stall barns, free stall barns, milk rooms, milking centers, cow yards,
barnyards, medication pens, walkers, animal walkways, and stables. The manure storage area
includes but is not limited to lagoons, run-off ponds, storage sheds, stockpiles, under house or
pit storages, liquid impoundments, static piles, and composting piles. The raw materials storage
area includes but is not limited to feed silos, silage bunkers, and bedding materials. The waste
containment area includes but is not limited to settling basins, and areas within berms and
diversions, which separate uncontaminated stormwater. Also included in the definition of
production area is any egg-washing or egg-processing facility, and any area used in the storage,
handling, treatment, or disposal of mortalities (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)).
Chapter 15 - Page 346
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Definition: Land Application Area
The land application area means all land under the control of the CAFO owner or operator,
including where the CAFO owns, rents, or leases the land to which manure from the production
area is applied (40 CFR 122.23(e)(3)). It includes situations where a CAFO determines when and
how much manure is applied to fields not owned, rented, or leased by the CAFO.
Definition: Process Wastewater
Process wastewater means water directly or indirectly used in the operation of the AFO for any
or all of the following: spillage or overflow from animal or poultry watering systems; washing,
cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure pits, or other AFO facilities; direct contact swimming,
washing, or spray cooling of animals; or dust control. Process wastewater also includes any
water that contacts any raw materials, products, or byproducts, including manure, litter, feed,
milk, eggs, or bedding (40 CFR 122.23(b)(7)).
AFOs that Are Medium CAFOs
An AFO is a medium CAFO if it meets both parts of a two-part definition. The first part
addresses the number of animals confined, and the second part includes specific discharge
criteria. In addition, a medium-sized AFO can be designated a CAFO by the permitting authority
or EPA. Table 15-2 lists the animal number ranges associated with the medium CAFO definition.
If an AFO confines the number of animals listed in Table 15-2 for 45 days or more in a 12-month
period, it meets the first part of the definition of a medium CAFO.
An AFO meets the discharge criteria for the second part of the medium CAFO definition if
pollutants are discharged in one of the following ways:
• Into waters of the United States through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or another
similar man-made device.
• Directly into waters of the United States that originate outside the facility and pass over,
across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined
animals.
If the inspector identifies an unpermitted facility that is a medium CAFO, that CAFO is, by
definition, discharging to a water of the United States and must either apply for an NPDES
permit or permanently eliminate the source of the discharge (40 CFR 122.23(b)(6)).
Table 15-2. Medium CAFOs
Number of
Animals
Type of Animal
200-699
Mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry
300-999
Veal calves
300-999
Cattle, other than mature dairy cows or veal calves (Cattle includes but is not limited to
heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs.)
7502,499
Swine, each weighing 55 pounds or more
Chapter 15 - Page 347
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-2. Medium CAFOs
Number of
Animals
Type of Animal
3,000-9,999
Swine, each weighing less than 55 pounds
150-499
Horses
3,000-9,999
Sheep or lambs
16,500-54,999
Turkeys
9,000-29,999
Laying hens or broilers, if the AFO uses a liquid-manure handling system
37,500-124,999
Chickens (other than laying hens), if the AFO uses other than a liquid-manure handling
system
25,000-81,999
Laying hens, if the AFO uses other than a liquid-manure handling system
10,000-29,999
Ducks, if the AFO uses other than a liquid-manure handling system
1,500-4,999
Ducks, if the AFO uses a liquid-manure handling system
Source: 40 CFR 122.23(b)(6).
Definition: Man-Made Devices
The term man-made device means a conveyance constructed or caused by humans that
transports wastes (manure, litter, or process wastewater) to waters of the United States (EPA,
1995). Man-made devices include, for example, pipes, ditches, and channels. If human action
was involved in creating the conveyance, it is man-made even if natural materials were used to
form it. A man-made channel or ditch that was not created specifically to carry animal wastes
but nonetheless does so is considered a man-made device. To be defined as a medium CAFO,
there must be an actual discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. However, it is
not necessary for the man-made device to extend the entire distance to waters of the United
States. It is sufficient that the wastes being discharged flow through the man-made device. For
example, a culvert could simply facilitate the flow of wastewater from one side of a road to
another (and subsequently into a water of the United States) and is a man-made device for the
purposes of this provision. Also, a flushing system is a man-made device that uses fresh or
recycled water to move manure from the point of deposition or collection to another location.
Tile drains in the production area are another example of a man-made device. Tile drains are
underground pipes that collect subsurface water for transport away from the site. If tile drains
discharge manure to waters of the United States from the production area of a medium-sized
AFO, the facility meets the discharge criterion for the medium CAFO definition and is a medium
CAFO. An additional example would be the discharge to waters of the United States from a
continuous-flow-through water trough system.
The medium CAFO definition addresses discharges directly into a water of the United States,
which originate outside the facility and pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise
come into direct contact with the confined animals. The discharge criterion is met if animals in
confinement at an AFO can come into direct contact with waters of the United States. Thus, a
stream running through the area where animals are confined indicates that there is a direct
Chapter 15 - Page 348
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
discharge of pollutants unless animals are prevented from any direct contact with waters of the
United States.
Operations under Common Ownership
Under the CAFO regulations, two or more AFOs under common ownership are considered one
operation if, among other things, they adjoin each other (including facilities that are separated
only by a right-of-way or a public road) or if they use a common area or system for managing
wastes (40 CFR 122.23(b)(2)). For example, operations generally meet the criterion where
manure, litter, or process wastewater are commingled (e.g., stored in the same pond, lagoon,
or pile) or are applied to the same cropland.
In determining whether two or more AFOs are under common ownership, the number of
managers is not important. Two AFOs could be managed by different people but have a
common owner (e.g., the same family or business entity owns both). For facilities under
common ownership that either adjoin each other or use a common area or system for waste
disposal, the cumulative number of animals confined is used to determine if the combined
operation is a large CAFO and is used in conjunction with the discharge criteria to determine if
the combined operation is a medium CAFO.
Operations with Multiple Animal Types
Under the CAFO regulations, multiple types of animals are not counted together to determine
the type and size of a CAFO. However, once an operation is defined as a CAFO based on a single
animal type, all the manure generated by all animals confined at the operation is subject to
NPDES requirements. If wastestreams from multiple livestock species subject to different
regulatory requirements are commingled at a CAFO, any NPDES permit for the facility must
include the more stringent ELG requirements (2003 CAFO Rule—68 FR 7176 and 7195). In
situations where immature animals (e.g., heifers and swine weighing less than 55 lbs.) are
confined along with mature animals, the determination of whether the operation is defined as
a CAFO depends on whether the mature or immature animals separately meet the applicable
threshold. Operations that specialize in raising only immature animals (heifers, swine weighing
less than 55 lbs., and veal calves) have specific thresholds under the regulations. However, once
an AFO is defined as a CAFO, manure generated by all the animals in confinement would be
addressed by the CAFO's NPDES permit if it is a permitted CAFO.
An operation that confines multiple animal types, where no one type meets the large or
medium CAFO threshold, can be designated as a CAFO if it is found to be a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.
AFOs Designated as CAFOs
The CAFO regulations set the standards for the Director (either the Regional Administrator or
the NPDES permitting authority) to designate any AFO as a CAFO if the AFO is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.23(c)). The Director may
designate any AFO as a CAFO on a case-by-case basis if he determines that the AFO is a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States as specified in 40 CFR
122.23(c). AFO operations that may be considered for designation include the following:
Chapter 15 - Page 349
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• A medium-sized AFO that is not defined as a CAFO and is determined to be a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.
• A small AFO (i.e., confines fewer than the number of animals defined in Table 15-2) that
meets one of the methods of discharge criteria in 40 CFR 122.23(c)(3)(i) and (ii) and is
determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.
• An AFO that raises animals other than species identified in the regulatory definitions of
large and medium CAFOs and is determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants
to waters of the United States. Examples of such AFOs include geese, emus, ostriches,
llamas, minks, bison, and alligators.
For an AFO to be designated as a CAFO, the Director must determine that the AFO is a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.23(c)). Once an
operation is designated as a CAFO, it must seek coverage under an NPDES permit and, among
other things, develop and implement an NMP.
Under the regulations at 40 CFR 122.23(c)(3), an AFO may not be designated as a CAFO until the
NPDES permitting authority or EPA has determined that the operation should and could be
regulated under the permit program and has conducted an inspection of the operation. In
addition, a small AFO may not be designated as a CAFO unless it also meets the small AFO
discharge criteria (40 CFR 122.23(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) and is determined to be a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.
CAFO Program as it Applies to Unpermitted CAFOs
When inspecting unpermitted facilities, the inspector should gather information to determine if
the facility is a CAFO.12 For a CAFO with no NPDES permit, any discharge of pollutants from a
CAFO's production area to a water of the United States is a violation of the CWA, as is any
discharge from the CAFO's land application areas that is not agricultural stormwater.
By definition, medium CAFOs and designated small CAFOs have discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States. These facilities must apply for an NPDES permit or eliminate the
cause of the discharge.
Large Unpermitted CAFOs and the Agricultural Stormwater Exemption
Large unpermitted CAFOs may or may not have discharges to waters of the United States. If a
large CAFO currently has or had in the past, discharges of pollutants from its production area to
a water of the United States, those discharges are in violation of the CWA. Again, the large
CAFO will need to apply for a permit or permanently remedy the cause of the discharge.
Section 502(14) of the CWA excludes from the definition of a point source agricultural
stormwater discharges. A precipitation-related discharge of manure, litter, or process
wastewater to waters of the United States from land application areas under the control of a
12 Note that throughout this chapter, "unpermitted CAFO" refers to a CAFO without a Clean Water Act NPDES
permit. This includes CAFOs that have a permit issued pursuant to state law that is not considered to be an NPDES
permit.
Chapter 15 - Page 350
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Large unpermitted CAFO is a violation of the CWA except under certain conditions. The land
application area means all land under the control of the CAFO owner or operator, including
where the CAFO owns, rents, or leases the land to which manure from the production area is
applied (40 CFR 122.23(e)(3)). It includes situations where a CAFO determines when and how
much manure is applied to fields not owned, rented, or leased by the CAFO.
For a Large unpermitted CAFO's discharge to meet the definition of agricultural stormwater, the
CAFO must land apply its manure in accordance with site-specific nutrient management
practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter,
or process wastewater, as specified in Part 122.42(e)(l)(vi) through (ix). See Chapter 4 of EPA's
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) for more information on the agricultural
stormwater exemption.
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.42 (e)(l)(vi) through (ix) require the unpermitted large CAFO to:
• Implement appropriate site-specific conservation practices, including as appropriate
buffers or equivalent practices, to control runoff of pollutants to waters of the United
States.
• Follow protocols for appropriate testing of manure, litter, process wastewater, and soil.
• Follow protocols to land apply manure, litter or process wastewater in accordance with
site-specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural
utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter or process wastewater.
• Maintain specific records that document the implementation and management of the
minimum elements described above.
Inspectors should evaluate the protocols and practices implemented by the unpermitted large
CAFO against all applicable state technical standards that are part of the authorized state
NPDES program pursuant to 40 CFR 123.36. State technical standards may include sampling and
analysis methods, prohibitions on land application during certain times of the year, or on frozen
or saturated soils, etc. See Chapter 6 of the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA,
2012a) for more information on technical standards. Finally, the unpermitted large CAFO must
maintain documentation of its manure land application practices either on-site or at a nearby
office, and make these records available to the inspector upon request (40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(ix)).
If a Large unpermitted CAFO does not meet these requirements it is not covered by the
agriculture stormwater exemption and discharges to waters of the United States from the land
application area are in violation of the Clean Water Act. Discharges occurring during dry
weather can never be exempt as agricultural stormwater.
Large unpermitted CAFOs may have additional discharges not specifically addressed in the ELG
or CAFO regulations, either from the production area or from outside the production area. They
are also subject to industrial stormwater permitting requirements of 40 CFR 122.26. Large
CAFOs, as defined in 40 CFR 122.23 and 412 are included in category (i) of facilities considered
Chapter 15 - Page 351
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
to be engaging in industrial activity under 40 CFR 122.26 (b)(14). As a result, large CAFOs are
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 122.26 regardless of whether they are a permitted
facility under 40 CFR 122.23. The requirements of 40 CFR 122.26 apply to any stormwater
discharge from a large CAFO that is associated with industrial activity at a large CAFO that is not
otherwise regulated under 40 CFR 122.23 and 412. CAFOs that are permitted to discharge
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23 and 122.26 may have both sets of requirements included in a single
permit or in separate wastewater and stormwater permits. CAFOs subject to industrial
stormwater requirements may qualify for the conditional exclusion provided in 40 CFR
122.26(g) for no exposure certifications for stormwater discharges. CAFOs may also be subject
to stormwater permitting requirements for construction activity under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)
or (b)(15).
NPDES CAFO PERMITS
Applications and Notice of Intent
NPDES permitting authorities have two options for issuing NPDES permits to CAFOs: individual
permits and general permits. CAFO owners and operators who seek permit coverage must
either submit an application for an individual permit or submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) (or
permitting authority's comparable form) for coverage under a general permit, if a general
permit is available (40 CFR 122.23(d)(1)). EPA requires applicants who seek coverage under
either individual or general CAFO permits to provide, at a minimum, the information listed in
Table 15-3. The NPDES permitting authority may request additional information from the
applicant and use other CWA information-gathering authorities, such as CWA section 308, to
obtain such information.
Table 15-3. Information Required on NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2B
Form 1 (all NPDES individual permit applicants) 40 CFR 122.21 (f)
Activities conducted by the applicant that require an NPDES permit
Name, mailing address, and location of facility
Up to four Standard Industrial Classification codes that best reflect the principal products or services provided
Operator's name, address, and telephone number and ownership status
Whether the facility is on Indian lands
List of all other state or federal permits or construction approvals received or applied for under CWA, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), etc.
Brief description of the nature of the business
Form 2B (CAFOs) 40 CFR 122.21 (i)
The name, address, and telephone number of the owner or operator
Whether the application is for an existing or proposed facility
Facility name, address, and telephone number
Latitude and longitude of the production area
Name and address of integrator for contract operations
Specific information about the number and type of animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof
Total number of acres under control of the applicant available for land application of manure, litter, or process
wastewater
Chapter 15 - Page 352
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-3. Information Required on NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2B
Estimated amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater generated per year
Estimated amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater transferred to other persons per year
Topographic map of the geographic area in which the CAFO is located showing the specific location of the
production area
Containment and storage type and storage capacity for manure, litter, and process wastewater
A nutrient management plan that satisfies the requirements specified in
40 CFR 122.42(e), including, for all CAFOs subject to 40 CFR Part 412, Subpart C or Subpart B, the requirements
of 40 CFR 412.4(c), as applicable
Indication of whether a nutrient management plan is being implemented
Date of last nutrient management plan review or revision
Description of alternative uses of manure, litter, and process wastewater
Identification of land application best management practices implemented
Source: Program Question and Answer Document Volume 1 (EPA, 1992).
Elements of a CAFO Permit
NPDES Effluent Limitations and Standards
Section 301(a) of the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source into waters
of the United States unless the discharge complies with other provisions of the CWA, including
the requirement for a discharge to be authorized under an NPDES permit. Effluent limitations
serve as the primary mechanism in NPDES permits for minimizing discharges of pollutants to
receiving waters. Technology-based effluent limits are included in NPDES permits to achieve a
level of treatment of pollutants for point source discharges based on the applicable level of
control according to technologies specific to that industry. If technology-based limits are
insufficient to meet applicable water quality standards, more stringent water quality-based
effluent limitations can be included in the permit (CWA section 301(b)(1)(C)).
Overview of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations and Standards
Technology-based effluent limitations and standards for CAFOs must address all discharges
from a CAFO (40 CFR 122.42(e)). As discussed below, technology-based standards are
established through a national ELG for some CAFO discharges. All other discharges must be
addressed through technology-based effluent limitations developed on a case-by-case basis
using best professional judgment, or a combination of the two methods (40 CFR 125.3). In
general, CAFO permits will include limits for process wastewater discharges from the CAFO's
production area and land application area.
The production area at a CAFO includes the animal confinement areas and other parts of the
facility, including manure storage areas, raw materials storage areas, and waste containment
areas (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)). The land application area means all land under the control of the
CAFO owner or operator, including where the CAFO owns, rents, or leases the land to which
manure from the production area is applied (40 CFR 122.23(e)(3)). It includes situations where a
CAFO determines when and how much manure is applied to fields not owned, rented, or leased
by the CAFO. The regulation at 40 CFR 412 contains the ELG applicable to CAFOs. The CAFO ELG
Chapter 15 - Page 353
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
establishes the technology-based effluent limitations and new source performance standards
(NSPS) for those operations that meet the regulatory definition of a large CAFO.
ELG for Animal Sectors
The ELGs for CAFOs are broken into the following subparts addressing specific animal sectors
shown in Table 15-4 below.
Table 15-4. Effluent Limitation Summary
Animal Sector
ELG Technology-based Limits
Large CAFOs
Subpart A—Horses and sheep
Subpart B—Ducks
Subpart C—Dairy cows and cattle other than veal calves
Subpart D—Swine, poultry, and veal calves
40 CFR Part 412
40 CFR 412.13
40 CFR 412.22
40 CFR 412.33, 412.37
40 CFR 412.45, 412.47
All four subparts include specific discharge limitations. Subparts A and B contain technology-
based requirements for the production area only. Subparts C and D include technology-based
requirements for both production areas and land application areas under the control of the
CAFO owner or operator.
CAFOs That Are New Sources
The term new source is defined in 40 CFR 122.2, and the criteria for determining a new source is
identified at 40 CFR 122.29(b). Only large CAFOs can be new sources subject to NSPS
requirements promulgated in accordance with CWA section 306 (as provided in 40 CFR Part
412). The new source criteria in 40 CFR 122.29(b) are used to determine which large CAFOs are
defined as new sources.
CAFOs That Are New Dischargers
An AFO that is 1) newly constructed; 2) implements changes so that it meets the definition of a
CAFO; or 3) that is designated as a CAFO is a new discharger if it is not a new source. A new
discharger is an AFO that becomes a CAFO either through definition or designation and is not a
new source (i.e., subject to NSPS). Such operations could be a CAFO for one of the following
reasons: 1) the facility is newly constructed (but not subject to NSPS and therefore not a new
source); 2) the facility has changed some aspect of its operations such that it becomes defined
as a medium CAFO or designated as a small or medium CAFO.
Technology-Based Requirements for the Production Area of Large CAFOs
Operations Covered by Subpart A— Horses and Sheep
The ELG requirements for Subpart A (40 CFR 412.10-15) address the production area only. Any
additional technology-based requirements for discharges from the CAFO must be developed
using BPJ.
Existing and new large CAFOs that confine horses and sheep may not discharge manure or
process wastewater (which includes horse wash-down water) pollutants to waters of the
United States from the CAFO (i.e., no-discharge standard). The only exception to the no-
Chapter 15 - Page 354
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
discharge standard is an overflow that occurs because of a rainfall event from a permitted
facility that is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to contain all process
wastewater plus the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the location of the CAFO
(40 CFR 412.13 and 412.15).
Operations Covered by Subpart B—Ducks
The ELG requirements for Subpart B (40 CFR 412.20-26) address the production area only. The
ELG distinguishes between two types of manure handling systems in the production area of
duck operations (wet lot and dry lot). Any additional technology-based requirements for
discharges from the CAFO must be developed on a BPJ basis (40 CFR 125.3(a)).
All duck operations constructed before 1974 subject to the ELG must meet specific discharge
limitations established by 40 CFR 412.22. Those are the only numeric limitations in the CAFO
ELGs.
OPERATIONS COVERED BY SUBPART C—DAIRY COWS AND CATTLE OTHER THAN VEAL
CALVES AND BY SUBPART D—SWINE, POULTRY AND VEAL CALVES
Existing Sources—Subparts C and D
The ELG requirements for subparts C and D (40 CFR 412.30-37 and 412.40-47) address both
the production area and the land application area. This section addresses the technology-based
requirements associated with the production area. Subpart C includes requirements for large
CAFOs that confine dairy cattle and cattle other than veal calves, and Subpart D includes large
CAFOs that confine swine, poultry and veal calves. The requirements in Subpart C are identical
for existing sources and new sources. The requirements in Subpart D differ for existing and new
sources. The new source requirements for Subpart D are addressed below.
Existing sources subject to Subparts C and D and new sources subject to Subpart C are subject
to a no-discharge requirement. Those operations may not discharge manure into waters of the
United States from the production area (Subpart C—40 CFR 412.31(a), 412.32(a), and
412.33(a); Subpart D—40 CFR 412.43(a), 412.44(a), and 412.45(a)). The only exception to that
no-discharge standard is when precipitation causes an overflow, provided that the production
area is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to contain all manure, litter, and
process wastewater including the runoff and direct precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event.
To ensure that a facility meets the no-discharge standard, the CAFO must ensure that the
production area has adequate storage structures that are designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to contain all manure, litter, and process wastewater including the runoff and direct
precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event. An important consideration of whether the
CAFO meets the ELG requirements is whether it has adequate storage or treatment structure
capable of containing all manure, litter, and process wastewater that accumulate during the
critical storage period. To comply with the ELG, the storage volume in the production area must
contain all those wastes.
Chapter 15 - Page 355
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
To meet the no-discharge requirement, the CAFO must operate the production area in
accordance with additional measures and recordkeeping requirements specified in 40 CFR
412.37(a)-(b) and 412.47(a)-(b). Those include requirements for routine visual inspections of
the production area, the use of depth markers for liquid impoundments, corrective action when
deficiencies are identified, and mortality handling. Records must be maintained on-site,
including records for each of the above measures, and records documenting the design of
storage structures and any overflows that occur.
Voluntary Performance Standards
The voluntary alternative performance standards provisions in 40 CFR 412.31(a)(2) apply to
existing sources subject to Subpart C and D and new sources subject to Subpart C. This
provision applies only to discharges from the production area. The provision for alternative
performance standards allows a CAFO owner or operator to request from the Director NPDES
permit effluent limitations according to site-specific alternative technologies where the CAFO
can establish that the alternative technologies will achieve a quantity of pollutants discharged
from the production area equal to or less than the quantity of pollutants that would be
discharged under applicable baseline effluent guidelines performance standards.
New Source Performance Standards—Subparts C and D
As discussed in the previous section, Large Subpart C beef and dairy CAFOs that are new
sources have the same production area requirements as existing Subpart C operations. Large
Subpart D swine, poultry, and veal calf CAFOs that are new sources are subject to the NSPS (40
CFR 412.46).
Like existing sources subject to Subpart D, new sources under Subpart D may not discharge
manure, litter, or process wastewater into waters of the United States from the production
area and are required to comply with the additional measures and recordkeeping requirements
at 40 CFR 412.47(a) and (b).
Unlike the requirements for existing sources, 40 CFR 412.46 does not allow an exception for
new sources to the no discharge requirement. Rather, a CAFO subject to the requirements of 40
CFR 412.46 must either 1) have an absolute prohibition of any discharge from its production
area as a condition of its permit, or 2) request the permitting authority to "establish NPDES best
management practice effluent limitations designed to ensure no discharge..." whereby the
facility can satisfy the no discharge effluent limitation (40 CFR 412.46(a)(1)). See Chapter 4 in
the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) for more information.
New sources subject to Subpart D using an open storage structure must have a depth marker to
indicate the maximum volume of manure and process wastewater the structure is designed to
contain (whereas existing sources and new sources subject to Subpart C must use a depth
marker that indicates the 25-year, 24-hour storm event).
An important consideration of whether a CAFO meets the NSPS alternative is if it has an
adequate storage or treatment structure capable of containing all manure that accumulates
Chapter 15 - Page 356
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
during the critical storage period. To comply with the NSPS, the storage volume in the
production area must contain all wastes.
The definition of a New Source and the requirements for New Sources and their applicability
may be complex, depending on the circumstances at an individual facility. Refer to Chapter 4 of
the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) for more detailed information.
Requirements for the Production Area of Large CAFOs
Even for CAFOs subject to a no-discharge, technology-based standard for the production area,
situations could arise where the permit imposes more stringent requirements for allowable
discharges. Specifically, more stringent discharge limitations are necessary in instances where
CAFOs discharge from a production area to a waterbody listed under CWA section 303(d) as
impaired due to nutrients, dissolved oxygen or bacteria, or where an analysis of frequency,
duration and magnitude of the anticipated discharge (consisting of potential overflows of
manure, litter, or process wastewater) indicates the reasonable potential to violate applicable
water quality standards.
Technology-Based Requirements for the Land Application Area of Large CAFOs
Each CAFO subject to the ELG requirements in subparts C and D that land applies manure must
do so in accordance with certain practices that constitute the technology-based effluent
limitations for the land application area (40 CFR 412.4 and 412.37(c)).
A general description of the practices required by 40 CFR 412.4 follows.
• Develop and implement a field-specific NMP that fully incorporates the other
requirements of 40 CFR 412.4 concerning land application.
• Land apply manure at application rates that minimize nitrogen and phosphorus
transport from the field to waters of the United States in compliance with the technical
standards for nutrient management established by the permitting authority. The
technical standard for nutrient management must include a field-specific assessment of
the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus transport from the field to waters of the
United States and address the form, source, amount, timing, and method of application
of nutrients on each field to achieve realistic production goals while minimizing nitrogen
and phosphorus movement to waters of the United States. The standard must also
include appropriate flexibility for any CAFO to implement nutrient management
practices to comply with the standard such as consideration of multiyear phosphorus
applications to fields that do not have a high potential for phosphorus runoff to waters
of the United States and phased implementation of phosphorus-based nutrient
management, as determined appropriate by the Director.
• Analyze manure at least once a year for nitrogen and phosphorus content, and analyze
soil at least once every five years for phosphorus content. The results of the analyses are
to be used in determining application rates for manure, litter, and other process
wastewater.
Chapter 15 - Page 357
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Periodically inspect equipment used for land application of manure for leaks (before
each application is recommended to ensure the manure is delivered at the proper rate
of application).
• Implement a minimum setback for manure application of 100 feet from surface waters
and conduits to surface waters; or substitute with a 35-foot vegetated buffer, or other
alternatives where the CAFO demonstrates equivalent pollutant reductions.
• Complete on-site records documenting implementation of all required best
management practices (BMPs) and any additional records specified by the permitting
authority.
Many states have unique requirements for developing an NMP. The EPA regulations establish
the minimum requirements for NPDES permitted CAFOs. States may require more stringent
requirements, and in many instances states have established additional requirements to
address land application. For example, many states require more frequent soil analysis than is
required by 40 CFR 412.4(c)(3). In recognition of that, 40 CFR 412.4(c)(2) requires application
rates for land application of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be in compliance with
technical standards for nutrient management established by the Director. The regulations at 40
CFR 123.36 require that the state's technical standards be a part of every approved state's
NPDES program.
EPA has encouraged states to address water quality protection issues when determining
appropriate land application practices as part of their technical standards for nutrient
management. At a minimum, the permitting authority must include in the technical standard
the following components:
• A field-specific assessment of the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus transport from
the field to waters of the United States.
• The form, source, amount, timing, and method of application of nutrients on each field
to achieve realistic production goals, while minimizing nitrogen and phosphorus
movement to waters of the United States.
• Appropriate flexibility for CAFOs to implement the standard (e.g., multiyear phosphorus
banking).
The state technical standards will provide additional specificity to key nutrient management
provisions in the ELG. The standards should include additional information, such as soil and
manure sampling and analysis protocols, application methods, and plan content requirements.
The state technical standards are also considered to determine if a facility meets the
requirements to be covered by the agriculture stormwater exemption. To meet the exemption
requirements, a facility's nutrient management planning must meet all appropriate state
technical standards (e.g., use correct sampling and analysis methods). CAFOs that land apply
using nutrient management practices based on standards other than the technical standards
established by the Director would have to demonstrate that such practices ensure the
Chapter 15 - Page 358
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter, or process wastewater
as specified in 40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(viii).
Requirements for the Land Application Area of Large CAFOs
As discussed, all permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement an NMP. When a
permitted CAFO implements an NMP in accordance with its permit requirements, any
remaining precipitation related discharges of manure are considered agricultural stormwater.
For large CAFOs subject to the ELG, that also means that the NMP must comply with permit
requirements that implement the ELG, including technical standards established by the Director
for nutrient management. For facilities not subject to the ELG, it means that the NMP must
comply with permit requirements that implement 40 CFR 122.42(e) and any additional nutrient
management requirements developed by BPJ. As previously mentioned, by definition, the
agricultural stormwater exemption applies only to precipitation-related discharges.
BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT (BPJ)
NPDES permit limitations are based on BPJ when national ELGs have not been issued pertaining
to an industrial category or process. Specifically, the NPDES regulations require a permit writer
to establish permit limitations on a case-by-case BPJ basis when ELGs are inapplicable, or in
combination with the effluent guidelines, where the ELG apply to only certain aspects of the
operation or certain pollutants (CWA section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 122.44(k)). As explained, ELGs
have been promulgated for only those operations that meet the regulatory definition of a large
CAFO, and apply to the production area for subparts A, B, C, and D, and land application area
for subparts C and D. For example, there is no ELG for small or medium CAFOs or for exotic
animal species. Exotic animal species are those not specifically identified in the ELG, for
example: llamas, geese, or ostriches. Nonetheless, just as for any other permitted facility, the
CWA requires that an NPDES permit for small, medium, and exotic animal CAFOs include
technology-based effluent limitations.
OTHER TECHNOLOGY-BASED LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO DISCHARGES FROM CAFOS
CAFOs may have additional discharges not specifically addressed in the ELG or CAFO
regulations, either from the production area or from outside the production area. Those include
but are not limited to the following:
• Process wastewater discharges from outside the production area, such as wash-down of
equipment that has been in contact with manure, raw materials, products or by-
products that occurs outside the production area.
• Discharges that do not meet the definition of process wastewater, such as domestic
wastewater discharges; chiller water; discharges associated with feed, fuel, chemical, or
oil spills, and equipment repair.
• Discharges of pollutants from poultry, swine, and veal calf animal confinement houses
that are not covered by the ELG. Those include removal of animals and cleaning out
houses, and runoff associated with fan exhaust deposits outside the houses.
Chapter 15 - Page 359
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A CAFO permit should address discharges such as those above and establish BAT/BCT limits
developed on a BPJ basis. The determination of whether to apply the no-discharge standard to
areas other than those that are covered by the ELG (animal confinement area, manure storage
area, waste containment area, and so on) is a site-specific determination that must be made by
the permitting authority. EPA and states can begin the BPJ analysis with an evaluation based on
the no-discharge standard, because that is the applicable standard most closely related to
those facilities (see discussion of BPJ-based limits in Chapter 4.1.4. of EPA's NPDES Permit
Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a)).
WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
All NPDES permits must include technology-based effluent limitations. However, a permit must
also include more stringent water quality-based limitations when such limitations are necessary
to meet water quality standards (CWA sections 402(a) and 301(b)(1)(C)).
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAND APPLICATION AREA OF PERMITTED LARGE CAFOS
As discussed, all permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement an NMP. When a
permitted CAFO implements an NMP in accordance with its permit requirements, any
remaining precipitation related discharges of manure are considered agricultural stormwater.
For large CAFOs subject to the ELG, that also means that the NMP must comply with permit
requirements that implement the ELG, including technical standards established by the Director
for nutrient management. For facilities not subject to the ELG, it means that the NMP must
comply with permit requirements that implement 40 CFR 122.42(e) and any additional nutrient
management requirements developed by BPJ. As previously mentioned, by definition, the
agricultural stormwater exemption applies only to precipitation-related discharges.
An NMP is a detailed planning document that identifies conservation practices and
management activities that, when implemented, help to ensure that both production and
natural resource protection goals are achieved. The objective of an NMP is to document those
practices and activities that will help achieve the goals of the producer and protect or improve
water quality.
Permitted CAFOs must comply with the terms of their NMP. As discussed above, the ELGs
establish more specific nutrient management requirements for Large dairy, cattle, swine,
poultry, and veal calf CAFOs. One of those requirements is that the manure application rates in
those CAFOs' NMPs must minimize phosphorus and nitrogen transport to surface waters in
compliance with technical standards for nutrient management established by the Director.
The CAFO regulations at 40 CFR 123.36 require states to establish technical standards for
nutrient management that are consistent with 40 CFR 412.4(c)(2). The regulations include basic
requirements for elements that each state's technical standards for nutrient management must
include.
• The state technical standards will provide additional specificity to key nutrient
management provisions in the ELG. The standards should include additional
Chapter 15 - Page 360
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
information, such as soil and manure sampling and analysis protocols, application
methods, and plan content requirements.
EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) provides more detail on EPA's
expectations for the content of state technical standards for nutrient management. It is
important for inspectors to be familiar with the applicable technical standards for each
inspected CAFO. The CAFO's permit will include terms of the NMP, which have been reviewed
by the permit writer to ensure the NMP and associated terms are consistent with the state's
technical standards for nutrient management. However, inspectors will need to understand the
scope and content of the technical standards to adequately evaluate NMP implementation. In
addition, for Large unpermitted CAFOs, the inspector needs to understand the state's technical
standards to determine if the CAFO's nutrient management practices meet the standards and
thus if the CAFO qualifies for the agricultural stormwater exemption.
Soil science and Soil Fertility
To fully understand nutrient management at a CAFO, the CAFO inspector should be aware of
the basic principles of soil science and soil fertility. Key concepts include nutrient cycling in soils,
the factors that influence plant availability of nutrients and crop uptake, as well as the
mechanisms and factors that affect nutrient loss from agricultural soils. These concepts are
used to develop and implement an NMP and some familiarity with the concepts will allow the
CAFO inspector to understand and evaluate NMP implementation. See Appendix AE,
"Management/Soil Science," which describes basic nutrient management and soil science
concepts for CAFO inspectors. CAFO inspectors may also refer to Appendix A of EPA's NPDES
Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a), which provides a more thorough introduction
to basic soil science and soil fertility.
Minimum Measures that Must Be Terms and Conditions of the NPDES Permit
Certain elements of a permitted CAFO's site-specific NMP are identified as "terms of the
permit." Those site-specific terms of the permit are defined as "the information, protocols,
[BMPs], and other conditions" identified in a CAFO's NMP and determined by the permitting
authority to be necessary to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 122.42(e)(1) (40 CFR
122.42(e)(5)). For CAFOs subject to subparts C and D of the ELG (Large dairy, beef, poultry,
swine, and veal calf CAFOs), the terms of the NMP must also include the BMPs necessary to
meet the land application requirements identified in 40 CFR 412.4(c). The NMP terms must be
included by the permit writer in a CAFO's NPDES permit as enforceable terms and conditions of
the permit. CAFO inspectors will assess whether CAFO operations are addressing these
conditions and implementing the terms of their NPDES permit.
With respect to protocols for land application of manure, the NPDES regulations identify the
specific information that is (and is not) considered to be terms of the NMP. CAFO inspectors
should be familiar with the approach (linear or narrative rate) used to develop the terms of a
CAFO's NMP as well as the terms that have been identified as enforceable permit conditions.
Many states have unique requirements for developing an NMP. The requirements of EPA
regulations establish the minimum requirements for permitted CAFOs. States may require more
Chapter 15 - Page 361
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
stringent requirements, and in many instances states have established additional requirements
to address land application.
The NPDES regulations establish minimum requirements—the nine minimum measures—that
must be addressed in every CAFO's NMP. As discussed above, the ELGs and the state technical
standards for nutrient management include more specific requirements for some of the
minimum measures that apply to certain CAFOs. The nine minimum measures that must be
included, as applicable, in each CAFO's NMP are listed below (40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(i)-(ix)). The
list also identifies the more specific requirements found in the ELG for certain CAFOs.
Minimum Measures:
• Ensure adequate storage of manure, litter, and process wastewater, including
procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage facilities.
- CAFOs subject to the ELG must meet the storage requirements associated with the
applicable subpart.
- CAFOs subject to subparts C and D of the ELG must implement additional measures
and recordkeeping for the production area.
• Ensure proper management of mortalities (i.e., dead animals) to ensure that they are
not disposed of in a liquid manure, stormwater, or process wastewater storage or
treatment system that is not specifically designed to treat animal mortalities.
- CAFOs subject to subparts C and D of the ELG must also handle mortalities to
prevent pollutant discharges to surface water.
• Ensure that clean water is diverted, as appropriate, from the production area.
• Prevent direct contact of confined animals with waters of the United States.
• Ensure that chemicals and other contaminants handled on-site are not disposed of in
any manure, litter, process wastewater, or stormwater storage or treatment system
unless specifically designed to treat such chemicals and other contaminants.
• Identify appropriate site-specific conservation practices to be implemented, including as
appropriate buffers or equivalent practices, to control runoff of pollutants to waters of
the United States.
- CAFOs subject to subparts C and D of the ELG must also implement 100-foot land
application setbacks from down gradient surface waters or conduits to surface
waters, or 35-foot vegetated buffers, or a compliance alternative.
- The state technical standards for nutrient management may also require
conservation practices to be implemented under certain land application scenarios.
• Identify protocols for appropriate testing of manure, litter, process wastewater, and
soil.
- CAFOs subject to subparts C and D of the ELG must sample soils for phosphorus at
least every 5 years and manure for nitrogen and phosphorus annually.
Chapter 15 - Page 362
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Establish protocols to land apply manure, litter or process wastewater in accordance
with site-specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural
utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter or process wastewater.
- The ELG establishes specific requirements for developing land application rates for
CAFOs subject to subparts C and D, including the requirement that those CAFOs use
the state technical standards for nutrient management when developing land
application rates.
• Identify specific records that will be maintained to document the implementation and
management of the minimum elements described above and in 40 CFR 122.42 (e)(l)(i)-
(viii).
- The ELG establishes specific recordkeeping requirements for CAFOs subject to
subparts C and D.
Information on how to evaluate performance of the nine minimum measures is included in
Section C, "The CAFO Inspection—Facility Tour," and Section D, "The CAFO Inspection—Record
Review and the NMP."
For large CAFOs subject to the land application requirements of the ELG, in addition to the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 122, the terms of the NMP must also include the BMPs necessary
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 412.4(c).
Part 412.4 requires that the NMP address the form, source, amount, timing and method of
application and include a field-specific assessment of the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus
transport from the field to surface waters. The Director may also allow appropriate flexibilities
to implement nutrient management practices.
Part 122.42(e)(5) further elaborates on the terms of the NMP associated with protocols for land
application. Those must include the fields available for land application, field-specific rates of
application, and any timing limitations on when manure can be land applied. The terms for
rates of application must follow one of two approaches that the regulation identifies as the
linear approach and the narrative rate approach.
Changes to a Permitted CAFO's NMP
Agricultural operations modify their nutrient management and farming practices during the
normal course of their operations. Such alterations might require changes to a permitted
CAFO's NMP during the period of permit coverage.
Because of the way NMPs are developed and the flexibility provided by the two options for
developing the terms of the NMP at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(5), most routine changes at a facility
should not require changes to the permit itself. To minimize the need for revision, NMPs should
account for and accommodate routine variations inherent in agricultural operations such as
anticipated changes in crop rotation, and changes in numbers of animals and volume of manure
resulting from normal fluctuations or a facility's planned expansion.
Chapter 15 - Page 363
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Typically, an NMP is developed to reflect the maximum number of animals confined at the
facility; the maximum capacity for manure storage; the total number of fields available for land
application and their maximum capacity for nutrient applications. Fluctuations under those
maximum amounts would not necessitate changes to NMPs. EPA encourages operators to
develop an NMP that includes reasonably predictable alternatives that a CAFO may implement
during the period of permit coverage. However, unanticipated changes to an NMP and in some
cases, permit terms, might nevertheless be necessary. In the course of the NMP review, an
inspector may identify instances where a CAFO may not have complied with a permit
requirement to notify the permitting authority of a change to its NMP during the period of
permit coverage. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(6) identify requirements that should be
incorporated into each CAFO's permit regarding providing the permitting authority with the
most current version of the NMP.
Agricultural Stormwater Exemption for Permitted CAFOs
Permitted CAFOs that land apply manure must implement practices to ensure that all
precipitation-related discharges from land application are composed entirely of agricultural
stormwater. Section 502(14) of the CWA excludes from the definition of a point source
agricultural stormwater discharges. The CAFO regulations establish when a discharge from a
land application area under the control of a CAFO is considered to be exempt agricultural
stormwater, as opposed to a point source discharge from the CAFO. A precipitation-related
discharge from a CAFO's land application areas is considered agricultural stormwater only when
the manure was applied in accordance with site-specific nutrient management practices that
"ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients" in the manure to be applied (40
CFR 122.23(e)). For CAFOs, the agricultural stormwater exemption applies only to discharges
from land application areas. Discharges occurring during dry weather can never be discharges
of agricultural stormwater.
Criteria for site-specific nutrient management practices for land application are specified in 40
CFR 122.42(e)(l)(vi)-(ix). For permitted CAFOs, the permit should set forth the, "site-specific
nutrient management practices" that will be implemented for each requirement of 40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(vi)-(ix). Under 40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(vii), all permitted CAFOs must establish field-
specific application rates for manure. The site-specific land application rates must be
established as enforceable terms in the facility's NPDES permit following either the linear
approach described in 40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i), or the narrative rate approach described in 40
CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii).
In addition to the requirements described above, permitted large CAFOs subject to the
requirements of Subpart C and D of Part 412 must also meet the requirement of 40 CFR
412.4(c) to qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption (40 CFR 122.23(e)(1) and
122.42(e)(1)). The ELG specifies requirements for implementing site-specific application rates,
manure and soil sampling, and setback requirements. Additionally, it provides protocols for
inspecting the land application equipment.
The site-specific application rates for manure must be developed in accordance with technical
standards established by the Director (40 CFR 412.4(c)(2)). The rates must also be identified in
Chapter 15 - Page 364
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
the facility's NPDES permit as enforceable terms following either the linear approach or
narrative rate approach (73 FR 70420).
Land Application at Permitted Small and Medium CAFOs
For precipitation-related discharges from the land application area of a medium or small CAFO
to qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption, the owner or operator of the CAFO must
implement an NMP that includes the practices and protocols specified in 40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(vii)-(ix).
Effluent limitations for medium and small CAFOs are based on BPJ and could be the same as, or
similar to, the effluent limitations established in the ELG for large CAFOs. Thus, a medium or
small CAFO might be required to develop protocols for land application in accordance with the
state technical standards for nutrient management and comply with the requirement for a 100-
foot setback or a 35-foot vegetated buffer between land application areas and any down
gradient surface waters or conduits to surface waters. Because the practices for ensuring
appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in land-applied manure at large CAFOs do
not differ significantly for medium and small CAFOs, the permit may apply the requirements
established in the state technical standards to land application sites at all permitted CAFOs.
MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF NPDES PERMITS
FOR CAFOS
The NPDES regulations identify recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements that are
applicable to all CAFOs (40 CFR 122.41,122.42(e)(2)-(4)). The CAFO ELG identify additional
recordkeeping and monitoring requirements that are applicable only to large CAFOs. The
recordkeeping requirements associated with the off-site transfer of manure are applicable to
large CAFOs. For CAFOs not subject to the ELG, additional monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements may be established as technology-based limits by the permitting authority on a
case-by-case basis using BPJ.
Monitoring Requirements
NPDES permits should include monitoring requirements that address the routine operational
characteristics of the facility and the minimum reporting requirements at 40 CFR 122.41(1). The
ELG includes specific monitoring requirements for daily and weekly visual inspections of specific
aspects of the production area and monitoring requirements associated with land application,
including manure and soil analysis and land application equipment inspection (40 CFR 412.37,
412.47).
The permit may also include monitoring requirements that address non-routine activities. For
example, discharges at a CAFO can occur because of an overflow during a catastrophic storm
event (which may be an allowable discharge under the terms of the permit) or a leak, breach,
overflow, or other structural failure of a storage facility because of improper operation, design,
or maintenance (which would be an unauthorized discharge). Unauthorized discharges could
also occur because of manure releases related to the improper storage or handling of liquid or
solid manure, or improper land application. Where there is a discharge from the production
Chapter 15 - Page 365
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
area to an impaired water, a permit may include more restrictive water quality-based effluent
limitations and additional monitoring requirements.
Recordkeeping Requirements
Permitted CAFOs must retain copies of all required documentation. In addition, permits should
require that the records be organized in a manner that inspectors can easily review during a
compliance inspection, such as the use of a dedicated logbook. The required records for large
CAFOs are listed in Table 15-5 and for small and medium CAFOs in Table 15-6. Records must be
maintained for five years.
Table 15-5. Required Records for Permitted Large CAFOs
Regulatory Requirement
for Recordkeeping
Records Required
Requirements to maintain records for the nine minimum terms of the NMP.
40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)
Adequate storage
capacity
Satisfied by requirements of 40 CFR 412.37(b) (below).
Mortality management
Satisfied by requirements of 40 CFR 412.37(b) (below).
Divert clean water
Satisfied by requirements of 40 CFR 412.37(b) (below).
Prevent direct contact
with waters of United
States
Identify what waters of the United States, if any, exist within the animal
confinement areas and the measures, including operation, and maintenance
procedures and associated records, that are implemented to prevent animals
from contacting waters of the United States.
Chemical disposal
Identify chemicals used or stored (or both) on-site and document appropriate
disposal methods.
Conservation practices to
control runoff to waters
of the United States
Identify the conservation practices used to control pollutant runoff, including
location, and the protocols and procedures, including installation, operation, and
maintenance, and associated records, that are implemented to ensure the
practices function to control pollutant runoff.
Manure and soil testing
Satisfied by requirements of 40 CFR 412.37(c) (below).
Protocols for land
application
Satisfied by requirement of 40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(ii) and 412.37(c) requirement to
maintain on-site a site-specific NMP.
Requirements to maintain records for the production area. 40 CFR 412.37(b)
A complete copy of the
information required by
40 CFR 122.21(i)(l)
The name and owner or operator.
The facility location and mailing address.
Latitude and longitude of the entrance of the production area.
A topographic map of the geographic area in which the CAFO is located showing
the location of the production area.
Specific information about the number and type of animals.
Type of confinement animals are in (open confinement or housed under a roof).
The type of containment and storage (anaerobic lagoon, roofed storage shed,
storage ponds, under floor pits, aboveground storage tanks, belowground
storage tanks, concrete pad, impervious soil pad, other).
The total capacity for manure, litter, and process wastewater storage
(tons/gallons).
Chapter 15 - Page 366
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-5. Required Records for Permitted Large CAFOs
Regulatory Requirement
for Recordkeeping
Records Required
The total number of acres under control of the applicant available for land
application of manure, litter, or process wastewater.
Estimated amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater generated per
year (tons/gallons).
Estimated amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater transferred to
other persons per year (tons/gallons).
The site-specific NMP.
Requirements to maintain records for the production area. 40 CFR 412.37(b)
Records documenting the
inspections
40 CFR 412.37(a)(1)
Necessary documentation for inspections of the production area.
Records documenting weekly inspections of all stormwater diversion devices,
runoff diversion structures, and devices channeling contaminated stormwater to
the wastewater and manure storage and containment structure.
Records documenting daily inspection of water lines, including drinking water or
cooling water lines.
Records documenting weekly inspections of the manure, litter, and process
wastewater impoundments.
Wastewater levels
40 CFR 412.37(b)(2)
Weekly records of the manure and wastewater level in liquid impoundments as
indicated by the required depth marker.
Corrective actions
40 CFR 412.37(b)(3)
Records of any actions taken to correct deficiencies found in the visual
inspections of the production area.
An explanation of the factors preventing immediate correction of any
deficiencies identified in the visual inspections of the production area that are
not corrected within 30 days.
Mortality management
required
40 CFR 412.37(b)(4),
(a)(4)
Records must identify that mortalities were not disposed of in any liquid manure
or process wastewater system. They must also identify that mortalities were
handled in such a way as to prevent the discharge of pollutants to surface water,
unless alternative technologies pursuant to 40 CFR 412.31(a)(2) and approved by
the Director are designed to handle mortalities.
Storage structure design
40 CFR 412.37(b)(5)
Current design of any manure or litter storage structures, including volume for
solids accumulation, design treatment volume, total design volume, and
approximate number of days of storage capacity.
Overflows
40 CFR 412.37(b)(6)
The date, time, and estimated volume of any overflow.
Requirements to maintain records for the land application area. 40 CFR 412.37(c)
Expected crop yields.
Weather conditions 24 hours before application, at time of application, and 24
hours after application.
Explanation of the basis for determining manure application rates, as provided in
the technical standards established by the Director.
Calculations showing the total nitrogen and phosphorus to be applied to each
field, including sources other than manure, litter, or process wastewater.
Total amount of nitrogen and phosphorus applied to each field, including
documentation of calculations for the total amount applied.
Chapter 15 - Page 367
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-5. Required Records for Permitted Large CAFOs
Regulatory Requirement
for Recordkeeping
Records Required
The method used to apply the manure, litter, or process wastewater.
Test methods used to sample and analyze manure, litter, process wastewater,
and soil (40 CFR 412.37(c), 47(c)).
Results from manure, litter, process wastewater, and soil sampling (40 CFR
412.37(c)).
Date(s) of manure application equipment inspection.
40 CFR Part 412.37(c)
At the discretion of the permitting authority.
Table 15-6. Required Records for Permitted Small and Medium CAFOs
Regulatory Requirement
for Recordkeeping
Responsive Records or Documentation
Requirements to maintain records for nine minimum terms of the NMP.
40 CFR 122.42(e)(l){ ix)
Adequate storage
capacity
Documentation of the storage capacity required to meet permit requirements
and the storage capacity available.
Mortality management
Records of practices implemented to meet the mortality disposal or management
practices (or both) of the permit.
Divert clean water
Document implementation of any operation and maintenance practices used to
ensure that clean water is diverted as appropriate.
Prevent direct contact
with waters of the United
States.
Identify what waters of the United States, if any, exist within the animal
confinement areas and the measures, including operation and maintenance
procedures and associated records, that are implemented to prevent animals
from contacting waters of the United States.
Chemical disposal
Identify chemicals used or stored (or both) on-site and document appropriate
disposal methods.
Conservation practices to
control runoff to waters
of the United States
Identify the conservation practices used to control pollutant runoff, including
location, and the protocols and procedures, including installation, operation, and
maintenance, and associated records, that are implemented to ensure the
practices function to control pollutant runoff.
Manure and soil testing
Results of manure and soil tests taken to meet the requirements of the permit
and NMP.
Protocols for land
application
Satisfied by requirement of 40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(ii) requirement to maintain a
site-specific NMP on-site.
Additional recordkeeping requirement to satisfy the effluent limitations
Determined by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis.
Reporting Requirements
Reporting requirements are generally linked to monitoring requirements and can include
periodic reports, emergency reports for overflow events, and special reports. An NPDES permit
will often include monitoring requirements for routine operational characteristics of the facility,
including the required annual report, and the minimum reporting requirements at 40 CFR
122.41(1). The permit may also include reporting requirements that address non-routine
Chapter 15 - Page 368
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
activities such as discharge notification (for both authorized and unauthorized discharges). In
case of a discharge, the CAFO is required to provide immediate notification of the permitting
authority and a follow-up report describing the specific data collection activities required for
discharges (40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)). The permittee must provide a description of the discharge,
describe the time and duration of the event, identify the cause(s) of the discharge, and provide
the result of any required analysis(es) to the permitting authority (40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and
122.44(g)).
Annual Reports
All NPDES permits for CAFOs must include a requirement that the permittee submit an annual
report with specific information defined in the regulation (40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)). In addition to
the information required by the NPDES regulations, state permitting authorities can require
additional information to be included with the annual report. The 2015 Final NPDES Electronic
Reporting Rule requires that NPDES regulated entities, electronically submit certain permit and
compliance monitoring information instead of using paper reports. Permitted CAFOs will need
to electronically submit any general permit reports (e.g., Notice of Intent (NOI)) and their
Annual Reports after December 21, 2020, unless they seek and have obtained an electronic
reporting waiver from the NPDES permitting authority (40 CFR 127.15).
The annual report must include the following (40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)):
• The number and type of animals confined at the CAFO.
• Estimated total amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater generated by the
CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons).
• Estimated total amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater transferred to other
persons by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons).
• Total number of acres for land application covered by the NMP.
• Total number of acres under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of
manure, litter, and process wastewater in the previous 12 months.
• Summary of all manure, litter, and process wastewater discharges from the production
area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including the date, time, and
approximate volume of the discharge.
• A statement indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's NMP was developed
or approved by a certified nutrient management planner.
• The actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field.
• The nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater as
reported on the laboratory report for the required analyses (Ibs./ton, g/Kg,
pounds/1,000 gallons, mg/L, ppm).
• The results of calculations conducted in accordance with the approved NMP to
determine the amount of manure, litter, or process wastewater to apply.
Chapter 15 - Page 369
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• The amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater applied to each field during the
previous 12 months.
• For any CAFO that implements an NMP that addresses rates of application in
accordance with the narrative rate approach:
• The results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus conducted during the
previous 12 months.
• The data used in calculations conducted in accordance with the methodology in the
approved NMP to determine rates of nitrogen and phosphorus application from
manure, litter, and process wastewater.
• The amount of any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months.
• The actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field, the actual nitrogen and
phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater, and the amount of
manure, litter, or process wastewater applied to each field during the previous 12
months.
CAFOs that follow the narrative rate approach for describing rates of application in the NMP
must also submit as part of their annual report:
• The results of all soil testing and concurrent calculations to account for residual nitrogen
and phosphorus in the soil, all recalculations, and the new data from which they are
derived.
• The amounts of manure and the amount of chemical fertilizer applied to each field
during the preceding 12 months. Together with the total amount of plant-available
nitrogen and phosphorus from all sources, the information that is required to be
included in the annual report provides the information necessary to determine that the
CAFO was adhering to the terms of its permit when calculating amounts of manure to
apply.
• The narrative rate approach requires the CAFO to recalculate the projected amount of
manure, to be land applied, using the methodology in the NMP, at least once a year,
throughout the period of permit coverage. The recalculations and the new data from
which they are derived are required to be reported in the CAFO's annual report (40 CFR
122.42(e)(5)(ii)).
The annual report requirements should reflect implementation of existing NMP provisions and
changes to the NMP contemplated through flexibilities built into the NMP during the initial
planning process or later modifications in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42(e)(6). Because the
terms of the NMP are incorporated as enforceable terms and conditions of the permit, any
change that results in a change to the terms of the NMP constitutes a change to the permit and
therefore must be processed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42(e)(6).
EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a), Appendix D, "Example Nutrient
Management Plan Record Keeping Forms," and Appendix M, "Nutrient Management
Chapter 15 - Page 370
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Recordkeeping Calendar," includes some examples of recordkeeping forms. Those forms can
help the operation meet some of the recordkeeping requirements specified in the regulations.
_ premringforthe
CAFO OR AFO INSPECTION
The primary goals of the CAFO inspection are gathering information to identify and document
threats to water quality; determine status as a CAFO or AFO, determine compliance status with
the statute, regulations, permit conditions and other program requirements; and verifying the
accuracy of information submitted by the CAFO. Other goals of a CAFO inspection might include
investigating a citizen tip or complaint, gathering evidence to support enforcement actions,
collecting information to support NPDES permit development, and assessing compliance with
orders or consent decrees. In addition, providing feedback to the producer on where discharge
vulnerabilities may exist is important. Some problems can be remedied quickly once identified,
and preventing pollutant discharges is the best outcome for water quality. Information
collected depends on the type of CAFO inspection being conducted. Information collected and
operational aspects evaluated during the inspection will vary by inspection type. A CAFO
inspection is often categorized as a Status Determination Inspection, Permit Compliance
Inspection, Reconnaissance, Settlement Agreement Inspection, or Complaint Inspection and
may include sampling elements.
SELECTION OF FACILITIES FOR INSPECTION
Although specific procedures to select facilities for inspection will vary by EPA Region and by
authorized state, the basic approach is similar. Some facilities are selected for inspection based
on probable cause, which means that the regulatory agency has obtained specific evidence of a
possible existing violation at a facility. Inspections are conducted in response to citizen
complaints about a specific facility, emergency situations such as reports of ongoing spills,
information about specific water quality problems or fish kills, referrals from a state, to assist a
state inspection effort, or as a follow-up to prior inspections indicating violations at the
same facility or at other facilities owned or operated by the same entity. Facilities are also
selected through the Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme, in which the regulatory agency
does not have any prior information indicating that there are existing violations. These are
routine inspections to evaluate compliance. Within the neutral scheme, priority may be given to
facilities that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Are large CAFOs.
• Are in priority watersheds impaired by runoff from AFOs or high water quality
watersheds that are priorities for protection.
• Are in watersheds with high AFO or CAFO density.
• Are near surface waters.
• Have the potential for large amounts of animal waste to reach surface water.
• Are near sources of drinking water.
Chapter 15 - Page 371
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy calls for the following inspection frequencies:
• CAFOs with NPDES permits should be inspected by states and regions at least once
every five years to determine compliance with the permit.
• Large CAFOs without NPDES permit coverage should be inspected to determine if the
facility discharges. After a determination is made, future inspections occur on an as
needed basis, (e.g., to see if the facility has made changes to its operation).
• Medium AFOs should be "assessed" one-time initially to determine if the facility is
discharging and is a medium CAFO.
• Small AFOs should be inspected as needed based on complaints or other information.
COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION STRATEGY
The primary role of a CAFO inspector is to gather information that can be used to determine if
an AFO or CAFO is in violation of NPDES and CWA requirements. If the CAFO has an NPDES
permit the inspector will evaluate compliance with permit conditions, applicable regulations,
and other requirements. Because most CAFOs do not have NPDES permit coverage, the CAFO
inspector will often be collecting information to determine whether an unpermitted AFO or
CAFO is discharging pollutants to a water of the United States and has a duty to apply for a
permit. The CAFO inspector also plays an important role in enforcement case development and
support. To fulfill these roles, a CAFO inspector must know before the inspection how
compliance will be evaluated and what documentation will be necessary to make and support
compliance determinations. If the CAFO inspector does not know what documentation to
collect, the inspection may not provide appropriate and sufficient information. A compliance
determination strategy is a formal or informal plan for the information and operational
characteristics that an inspector will evaluate at a facility. The compliance determination
strategy should reflect the type of inspection being conducted (see the examples in Table 15-7).
The inspector should have a clear idea of the purpose of the inspection and the information
that will be useful in evaluating compliance. The compliance determination strategy could be a
ranking of preference in terms of documents, photographs, statements, and other materials to
be evaluated and used to effectively demonstrate that the facility is or is not complying with
applicable requirements. The compliance determination strategy will form the basis of the
CAFO Inspection Plan, discussed at the end of this section.
Table 15-7. Example Inspection Focus for Compliance
Determination Strategy Based on Inspection Type
Inspection Type
Inspection Focus for Compliance Determination Strategy
Status Determination Inspection
Information needed to determine whether the facility is a CAFO; for
example:
• Number of animals confined
• Confinement period
Chapter 15 - Page 372
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-7. Example Inspection Focus for Compliance
Determination Strategy Based on Inspection Type
Inspection Type
Inspection Focus for Compliance Determination Strategy
Information needed to determine if the facility is discharging or has
discharged; for example:
• Quantity of waste generated
• Storage capacity
• Potential discharge locations
• Records or other evidence of discharges
• Proximity to waters of the United States
Permit Compliance Inspection
All information needed to evaluate permit compliance; for example:
• Evidence of discharges or water quality impacts to the receiving
water(s).
• Documentation of required visual inspections.
• Evaluation of impoundment operation and maintenance.
• Documentation of mortality management or disposal.
• Land application records.
• Animal feed storage and runoff management.
• Evaluation of conservation practice operation and maintenance.
• Documentation of compliance with all NMP nine minimum measures
and associated NMP terms.
Settlement Agreement Inspection
Any information relevant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement
Complaint Inspection
Documentation and evaluation of site conditions related to the complaint
Documentation provides a snapshot in time of
the actual conditions existing at the time of
inspection so that evidence can be examined
objectively by compliance personnel.
Documentation is a general term used here to
refer to all printed information and electronic
media produced, copied, or created by an
inspector to provide evidence of suspected
violations. Forms of documentation include
the inspector's field notebook or inspection
checklist, verbal statements documented by
the inspector, photographs, videotapes,
drawings, maps, printed matter, electronic
recordings, and photocopies or photographs
of on-site records. Of these, verbal
statements are the least desirable as they are the easiest to refute. Documentation may also
include sampling of manure, litter, and process wastewater as well as soils, surface waters or
discharges and the necessary labeling and chain of custody documents associated with the
samples.
Documentation Tips
S Include a distinguishing characteristic like a
unique depth marker or buildings in the
background of photos.
S Impermanent items, such as vegetation, do not
make good reference points as they can be
easily removed.
Photos should include an accurate date/time
stamp that shows it was taken during the time
period of the inspection.
S Some digital cameras include built-in global
positioning system (GPS) tagging that allows an
inspector to associate each photo with the
geographic location where it was created.
Chapter 15 - Page 373
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPA or state attorneys will be able to provide compliance determination strategies and
documentation requirements based on prior case law and experience presenting evidence in
court. For example, the inspector may want to include an obvious reference point in
photographs that clearly ties the image to a specific CAFO. Documents should, ideally, have
dated signatures or certification stamps (e.g., professional engineers stamp, where
appropriate).
CAFO INSPECTOR RESPONSIBILITIES AND PREPARATION ACTIVITIES
In addition to the responsibilities described in EPA's NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual
(EPA, 2016), there are a number of other items that the CAFO inspector needs to do or consider
before entering the CAFO facility. The CAFO inspector needs to understand his or her role in the
inspection process, determine the type of inspection to be performed and become familiar with
the facility location and its geographic features. The CAFO inspector should consider his or her
responsibilities prior to the CAFO inspection:
1. Professional Attitude
2. Animal Safety and Biosecurity
3. Inspector Safety and Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)
4. General Facility Information
5. Review of Permit and Facility Files
6. Facility Compliance and Enforcement History
Professional Attitude
The CAFO inspector is often the first or only contact a CAFO operator has with the EPA. In
dealing with facility representatives and employees, CAFO inspectors should be professional,
tactful, courteous, and diplomatic. A firm but responsive attitude will encourage cooperation
and initiate professional working relationships. CAFO inspectors should always speak
respectfully of any product, manufacturer, or person but not endorse anything.
Many CAFO operators reside on-site, and their office may be in their residence. As a result,
portions of a CAFO inspection may take place in a non-neutral location such as the operator's
residence or vehicle or in the presence of the operator's family. The CAFO inspector should be
polite and respectful of the operator, family members or other facility employees, and the
operator's home, vehicle, or office. Inspectors may also encounter the owner's or operator's
pets and should resist the urge to touch or pet these animals. To the extent practicable, scrape
mud and manure from boots (or remove boots) prior to entering buildings and vehicles, drive
and park carefully, and behave in a non-confrontational manner as appropriate to the situation.
Another professional consideration unique to CAFO inspections is timing of the inspection so
the operator is available. The CAFO inspector should be aware that some farm operations will
take precedence over the inspection, especially animal emergencies. Dairies, for example, have
established milking schedules and the operator may not be available to meet if you arrive when
cows are being milked. Seasonal considerations, such as planting or harvest time, may also
Chapter 15 - Page 374
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
determine the availability of the CAFO operator or other knowledgeable employee to
participate in the inspection. Since inspectors often have to travel long distances to reach
remote facilities, it may be beneficial to contact the facility operator ahead of time to schedule
the inspection, if allowed by your regional or state policies. Also refer to the "Inspection
Notification" section of this chapter.
Animal Safety and Biosecurity
The CAFO inspector should be familiar with all safety obligations and practices regarding basic
inspections, including regional and state policies or requirements. Inspectors should ask about
and follow any facility-specific safety requirements in place. In addition to the basic health and
safety risks associated with inspecting facilities, CAFO inspectors have the added responsibility
to avoid transporting livestock diseases between facilities. Livestock animals are susceptible to
diseases from other facilities and human carriers are a risk to livestock operations. Failure to
follow proper biosecurity precautions could spread livestock illnesses like foot-and-mouth
disease (Aphthae epizooticae) or avian influenza. Without the proper precautions, CAFO
inspectors might unintentionally transport diseases between facilities on contaminated
clothing, equipment, or vehicles. To minimize the risk that a CAFO inspector will carry diseases
or infections into or between livestock facilities, CAFO inspectors should always follow EPA's
biosecurity procedures (Appendix AF, "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Biosecurity
Procedures for Visits to Livestock and Poultry Facilities"). CAFO owners or operators may or
may not ask visitors to abide by their site-specific biosecurity measures. Regardless of whether
the producer makes the request, EPA inspectors should follow the Biosecurity SOP at all
livestock and poultry facilities. If the visited operation has additional measures, the inspector is
strongly encouraged to follow them, as appropriate, at that specific facility.
Swine and poultry are typically most susceptible to diseases as the animals have limited contact
with the natural environment and humans who do not work at the facility. Swine and poultry
CAFOs may operate under the authority of an Integrator that oversees numerous facility
operations, with different levels of biosecurity. When visiting a facility with various age groups
of one species in one day, visit the youngest animal group first. Poultry is an exception. Poultry
breeding stock should be visited before other commercial birds. Be aware that most swine
facilities do not allow access to any person who has been to another swine operation within the
past 72 hours. In addition, many swine operations do not allow access to anyone who has
visited another livestock operation of any type within the past 24 hours. Poultry operations
often will deny access to anyone who has had contact with other birds, even pet birds, within
the past 48 hours.
CAFO inspectors must be aware of each facility's biosecurity requirements to plan multiple
inspections appropriately. Therefore, contacting the Integrator before making swine or poultry
farm inspections may be helpful if the inspection plan involves making several different site
inspections. The CAFO inspector might need to call in advance so that the biosecurity measures
are known before the inspection and the information is accessible along with other pre-
inspection information. At a minimum, inspectors should have biosecurity equipment in their
vehicle should it be needed. Many CAFOs do provide biosecurity equipment for visitors but
inspectors must have their own available to avoid being denied access for a lack of protective
Chapter 15 - Page 375
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
equipment. Consult the Biosecurity SOP for a full list of personal protective equipment and
supplies. If inspectors are denied access for biosecurity or any other reason, it should be noted
in the inspector logbook/notes, along with the name of the facility contact who denied the
access. Equipment and supplies are included in the Biosecurity SOP as well as procedures to
follow (see Appendix AF, "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Biosecurity Procedures for
Visits to Livestock and Poultry Facilities").
Some highlights of the Biosecurity SOP are included below, but these are NOT a substitute for
the procedures in the Biosecurity SOP.
• When EPA personnel are planning to visit a livestock or poultry facility, they should first
contact USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) or the state
veterinarian to identify any areas with outbreaks of animal disease, where travel should
be avoided.
• As a general rule, EPA will not conduct inspections on livestock or poultry facilities in
areas with ongoing emergency foreign animal disease response activities (e.g.,
vaccination program, depopulation, disposal, or virus elimination).
• Do not make on-site visits to livestock operations if you have visited a foreign country
and were exposed to or had contact with farm animals (with or without a known
contagious disease) within 5 days before the site visit. Also, clothing and equipment
(including shoes) worn or used on foreign farm visits should be cleaned before use on
U.S. facilities. If appropriate cleaning is not possible, alternative clothing or equipment
should be used.
• Some facilities have an established policy of requiring that their own vehicles be used
for transportation purposes within the facility. An Integrator may also want to drive the
inspectors from one farm to another, rather than allowing the inspector to take his or
her vehicle. Inspectors may accept offers of facility-provided transportation within a
facility if the total value of the transportation is $20 or less. Consult with your ethics
counselor if the total value of the transportation exceeds $20, or you will be transported
in non-ground transportation (e.g., aircraft or helicopter) or transported across more
than one facility. For other situations, consult with your ethics counselor.
• On entering a facility, acknowledge any and all other livestock facilities visited within the
previous 48 hours, including whether EPA entered any animal confinement or waste
storage areas.
• EPA should only enter animal production buildings if it is essential to complete the goals
of the visit, and should avoid contact with livestock, poultry or other animals (wild or
domestic) on any facility.
• Use disinfectants that have been registered (or exempted) by EPA for the intended use.
EPA's pesticide registration program maintains information on EPA registered
disinfectants. Information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-
registration/selected-epa-registered-disinfectants.
Chapter 15 - Page 376
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Keep a copy of the label and the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for any registered disinfectant
used and make both available to the facility operator upon request. Follow all label
safety precautions and dispose of empty containers, unused disinfectant solution, and
used disinfectant in accordance with label instructions.
• In consultation with Health and Safety staff, identify an appropriate location such as an
EPA or state laboratory, or office, for disposal of soiled disposable items in case the
owner/operator will not allow the waste to remain on-site.
Inspector Safety and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
In addition to animal safety and biosecurity, CAFO inspectors must also be aware of specific
safety risks that may be encountered during a CAFO inspection. The CAFO inspector should be
familiar with all safety obligations and practices, both EPA's and the facility's, to avoid
unnecessary risks. Safety equipment and procedures required for a facility will be based on
EPA's standard safety procedures or if used, by the CAFO's response to the 308 Letter. See
Appendix AG, "Field and Personal Protective Equipment," for additional safety information.
Safety requirements must be met, not only for safety reasons, but to ensure that the CAFO
inspector is not denied entry to the facility or parts of it. Below are several safety issues that an
inspector might encounter at a CAFO.
• Pesticide spraying and storage. CAFOs might store pesticides in
both concentrated and dilute form. CAFO inspectors should
never enter an area where pesticides are being applied. The
CAFO inspector should be able to recognize a pesticide sign, and
before entering an area where pesticides have been applied the
inspector should determine the type of pesticide applied, the
time and date of application, and whether the area is safe to
enter.
• Confined spaces. Gases such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide
ammonia, and methane are present in all stored manure, and if
not properly ventilated, can reach concentrations dangerous to
humans. Covered or enclosed tanks present the greatest danger, especially when
manure is being agitated or pumped out of the structures. CAFO inspectors should not
enter confined spaces used to store manure or silage. If entering a confined space is
necessary, the inspector must be certified for confined space entry.
• Drowning is a possibility where semisolid, slurry, and liquid manures are stored. Liquid
or slurry manure stored in an open impoundment often forms a surface crust. The
thickness of the crust depends on the moisture content and consistency of the manure.
However, under no conditions is the crust solid enough to support a human being. CAFO
inspectors should never step on any crusted surfaces during an inspection. Also, look
out for open trenches or sumps in barns or other structures; the drop off may not be
immediately visible if the storage is full or the floor is covered with bedding, litter or
other wastes.
DANGER IPELIGRO
PESTICIDES IPESTICI OAS
KEEP OUT
NO ENTRE
Chapter 15 - Page 377
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Electrocution. Some CAFO operators use tractors to power pumps when transferring
waste out of storage lagoons. The power sources (takeoffs) present both electrical
hazards and physical hazards for CAFO inspectors wearing loose-fitting clothing.
Facilities being washed present an electrocution hazard to the CAFO inspector. Wash
water might conduct electricity from wiring, connections, or equipment to persons in
contact with that water. CAFO inspectors are advised to stay out of facilities during wash
down. Electric fencing may be in place to keep animals in designated grazing areas or
exercise lots, or to keep animals out of waterways. Inspectors should avoid touching or
climbing over or under a "live" wire fence to avoid an electric shock. Facility operators
can usually open or disable a live fence so that inspectors can access areas as needed.
• Equipment used for handling, transporting, and applying manure can be hazardous to
the operator and to others close by. The operator's manual for the equipment should
document the potential hazards for that equipment. Common hazards include getting
clothing or limbs caught in moving equipment parts; injury from escaping hydraulic
fluid; and slippage of tractors, loaders, and spreaders. CAFO inspectors should exercise
appropriate caution (e.g., not wearing loose-fitting clothing) around any machinery
encountered during an inspection. Inspectors should also take care to alert truck drivers
and equipment to their presence to prevent accidents.
• Disease and Illness. Very few animal diseases are of concern to humans. However,
persons with low immunity can contract a specific respiratory illness from poultry called
histoplasmosis. Livestock can carry bacteria, fungi, and parasites that cause illnesses
such as cryptosporidiosis, ringworm, salmonella, giardiasis, leptospirosis, and
complications from exposure to E. coli. Other illnesses, such as Q fever, anthrax,
pseudocowpox, and rabies are less common, but can result from close contact with
livestock. Pregnant women are at increased risk from some of these diseases
(cryptosporidiosis, listeriosis, and Q fever) (Pelzerand Currin, 2009; Adams, 2012).
Fortunately, many of these diseases are rare. Nevertheless, CAFO inspectors should
avoid entering animal confinement areas unless necessary to adequately assess
compliance. In addition, the inspector should never touch an animal at a CAFO and
should follow all the biosecurity precautions in the previous section to minimize risk and
exposure.
For any safety- or health-related issues not covered in this manual, CAFO inspectors should
consult with their Health and Safety staff.
Health and Safety Tips for CAFO Inspections
• Always wear appropriate PPE; this includes long pants and safety boots (reinforced toe and at least ankle
height), sunscreen, and mosquito repellent (containing DEET or Picaridin), as appropriate. A dust mask may
be appropriate during windy or excessively dry weather. A safety vest may improve visibility to equipment
operators.
• Maintain a safe distance from wastewater lagoon edges and observe from upwind, whenever possible.
• Do not enter confined or enclosed spaces where manure is being stored. Methane released by manure can
be lethal. Inspectors must not enter any confined spaces without proper certification.
Chapter 15 - Page 378
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Health and Safety Tips for CAFO Inspections
• Do not enter fenced-in areas unless you are accompanied by the operator or can observe the entire
enclosure to ensure no animals or other hazards exist.
• Be aware of snakes while walking around a CAFO. Avoid walking through areas of heavy brush where you
could startle a snake and provoke a strike. Wear boots at all times. If a snake is encountered remain silent,
step away slowly, and otherwise remain motionless.
• Be aware of dogs while approaching CAFOs and during your inspection. If a dog is preventing entry to the
CAFO, telephone the facility contact and ask that the dog be restrained. As with all animals at a CAFO, do
not pet or touch dogs.
• Keep anti-bacterial hand wash or wipes in your vehicle. Clean hands frequently and after each inspection.
• Other types of standard safety equipment may also be warranted, e. g., a hard hat if the facility has active
construction underway, or ear protection where exhaust fans may be in use.
General Facility Information
Prior to the inspection, it is good practice to locate the CAFO on a topographic map and the
inspector may want to obtain aerial imagery of the facility. A variety of free Internet-based
tools can provide topographic maps and aerial imagery for a specific address or GPS
coordinates. EPA Regions may have subscriptions to additional mapping resources, such as
TerraServer, or have an in-house GIS team or contacts. Note that in rural areas the CAFO's
mapped address may not correspond with the production area, for example, it may correspond
to the owner's home address. In addition, older imagery may show newer operations. If the
facility's production area is not specifically identifiable on aerial imagery, the CAFO inspector
should print out several larger scale images that show areas near the address. The facility
representative may need to identify the operation's location on these aerial images, in addition
to satellite locations such as heifer farms.
The aerial image can be used to locate CAFO production areas, land application areas, and
nearby surface waters. A facility diagram or aerial image should be reviewed with the CAFO
representative during the inspection to label structures, storage areas, property boundaries,
land application fields, and other facility characteristics. The annotated diagrams and aerial
image(s) should be attached to the inspection report for reference (See Appendix AH, "Mapping
Tool (Region 5)").
Facility Information That Should Be Gathered Before a CAFO Inspection
S Maps and aerial photographs of the CAFO.
S Facility's site plan.
S Names, titles, and telephone numbers of responsible CAFO officials.
•/ Description of animal types and agricultural processes.
S Typical livestock population and maximum capacity.
S Approximate distance to nearest surface water(s).
S Water quality/impairment status of the surface water(s).
Closest floodplain, if available.
S Changes in CAFO conditions since previous inspection/permit application.
S Any known safety and biosecurity requirements.
Chapter 15 - Page 379
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Facility Information That Should Be Gathered Before a CAFO Inspection
S Permit, if the facility has permit coverage, or state requirements, including state technical standards, if the
facility is unpermitted and land applies manure.
S Nutrient Management Plan, if the facility has one, or whatever nutrient management planning has been
submitted if the facility is unpermitted.
S Identify any missing or incomplete information.
Locating the target facility on a topographic map is useful for measuring distances and potential
flow paths to waters of the United States. The topographic map will show the natural gradient
around the facility. This can be used to determine areas where stormwater may flow overland
on to the site, areas that may require clean water diversions, and areas where water may drain
from the site. Once the names of nearby surface waters are identified, the CAFO inspector
should refer to the state's Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired waters to determine
if surface water segments adjacent to or downstream of the facility are impaired for nutrients,
sediment, or other potential pollutants that could be discharged from the CAFO.
Useful mapping resources include:
• NRCS' Web Soil Survey maps
(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) can be used to identify
soil types expected under the CAFO's production area and their characteristics.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps
(https://msc.fema.gov/portal/howto) can be used to estimate if the facility is in a
mapped flood zone.
• EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results System (WATERS)
(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/waters/index.cfm) can be used to identify
impaired waters, TMDLs, provide maps of surface waters, etc.
Review of Permit and Facility Files
Collection and analysis of available facility background information are essential to the effective
planning and overall success of a compliance inspection. Materials from available files and
other information sources will enable CAFO inspectors to familiarize themselves with facility
operations; conduct a timely, thorough and efficient inspection; clarify technical and legal
issues before entry; and develop a sound and factual inspection report. The types of
information that may be available for review are listed below and discussed in detail in the
following sections. The CAFO inspector is responsible for determining the amount of
background information necessary for the inspection and in collecting this information should
focus on the characteristics unique to the permittee: site-specific NPDES permit requirements,
historical wastewater and manure management practices, nutrient management, proximity to
waters of the United States, compliance history, etc.
The CAFO inspector may not have much facility-specific information available prior to the
inspection of an unpermitted facility. The CAFO inspector is expected to review the permit and
compliance file in advance of an inspection at a permitted CAFO. If the inspector suspects that
Chapter 15 - Page 380
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
an unpermitted CAFO or AFO may meet the criteria for permit coverage, familiarity with an
available general permit, or an individual permit for a similar type of facility in that state, will be
helpful in assessing conditions at the facility.
Some states may have state-issued CAFO permits that
are not NPDES permits, though many of the objectives
and provisions are similar. In addition, some states issue
permits that do fulfill NPDES requirements, but may
also include "above and beyond" provisions stipulated
by state regulations (e.g., groundwater protection). EPA
does not conduct compliance inspections for non-
NPDES permits, or the non-NPDES provisions of "dual
purpose" permits.
A facility with a non-NPDES state issued permit may still
need NPDES coverage; for purposes of the inspection
these facilities can be considered unpermitted facilities.
If conducting a joint inspection with a state inspector on
a "dual purpose" permit, the state inspector should take
the lead on questions and discussions about provisions and issues that are not required by the
NPDES regulations.
Conditions and Requirements of the Permit
Reviewing a CAFO's NPDES permit and nutrient management plan (NMP) is useful for finding
site-specific information such as facility size, number and type of animals, and manure and
wastewater management practices. CAFOs covered under a general permit will also have a site-
specific nutrient management plan.
While reviewing the permit, the CAFO inspector should pay special attention to the permit
requirements, nutrient management plans/practices, NMP terms, including identification of
site-specific records to be maintained and annual reports. If a facility has had previous
individual permits, it can be useful to review them, if available, to see if there has been any
operational changes or changes to the number of animals confined over time.
The inspector should give special consideration to permit requirements that are unique to that
operation. CAFO general permits stipulate the same provisions for every operation, perhaps
with some sector-specific or region-specific provisions; the nutrient management plans for each
facility will be site-specific. Individual permits are tailored for each specific operation and may
include compliance schedules that extend deadlines for the CAFO to meet certain
requirements. The inspector should determine how he or she will evaluate compliance with
both general and site-specific requirements before conducting the inspection.
Files Checklist
~
Conditions and requirements of the
permit.
~
Nutrient management
plans/practices, NMP terms.
/
Inspection notes and issues, along
with any previous site entry
problems.
~
Prior compliance problems,
enforcement actions, and
correspondence.
~
Prior complaints.
~
Most recent and any previous
annual reports.
Chapter 15 - Page 381
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
To become familiar with a CAFO permit and
NMP terms, CAFO inspectors should review
the example CAFO General Permit provided
in Appendix 0 and the example NMP in
Appendix P of EPA's NPDES Permit Writers'
Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a).
Requirements, Regulations, and Limitations
In addition to the CAFO permit, the CAFO
inspector should review in detail the
applicable EPA and state regulations and
effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs). If the facility to be inspected is an unpermitted CAFO, state
regulations may establish the bulk of the applicable requirements. For unpermitted large CAFOs
the federal NPDES regulations prohibit discharges from the production area and establish
certain nutrient management requirements for the land application area (See the "Overview of
the NPDES Program for CAFOs" in Section A).
For unpermitted large CAFOs, the inspector will review
the facility's documentation and implementation of
nutrient management practices to determine if the land
application areas qualify for the agricultural stormwater
exemption (see Section A for information on land
application requirements). A large CAFO's nutrient
management planning must account for appropriate site-
specific best management practices, protocols for
appropriate manure and soil testing, appropriate
protocols for land application, and maintenance of
records to document the implementation of those BMPs.
In these cases, the inspector should gather records and make observations regarding:
• Nutrient recommendations and average yields for prevalent crops.
• Implementation of the permitting authority's technical standards for nutrient
management such as requirements for soil and manure testing, development of manure
application rates and timing restrictions on land application (e.g., prohibition on
applying manure on snow covered or saturated ground).
• Standards or other guidelines for installation, operation, and maintenance of common
best management practices, including for the required setbacks or vegetated buffers.
Annual Reports
All NPDES permits for CAFOs must include a requirement that the permittee submit an annual
report with specific information defined in the regulation (40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)). Refer to
Appendix C of EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) for an example
annual report. The CAFO's annual reports will include the following required information:
Permit Conditions and Requirements Checklist
V General and site-specific or BPJ effluent
limitations.
S Monitoring and reporting requirements.
S NMP terms and the NMP.
/ Special exemptions, compliance schedules, and
waivers, if any.
S Changes in site conditions (when compared with
previous permits).
Requirements, Regulations, and
Limitations Checklist
~
Copies of regulations,
requirements, and restrictions
placed on CAFO discharges.
~
Monitoring and reporting
requirements (if not reflected in a
permit).
~
Special exemptions and waivers, if
any.
Chapter 15 - Page 382
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• The number and type of animals confined at the CAFO.
• Estimated total amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater generated by the
CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons).
• Estimated total amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater transferred to other
persons by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons).
• Total number of acres for land application covered by the NMP.
• Total number of acres under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of
manure, litter, and process wastewater in the previous 12 months.
• Summary of all manure, litter, and process wastewater discharges from the production
area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including the date, time, and
approximate volume of the discharge.
• A statement indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's NMP was developed
or approved by a certified nutrient management planner. The CAFO inspector should
check with the issuing agency on the status of the certification.
• The actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field.
• The nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater as
reported on the laboratory report for the required analyses (Ibs./ton, g/Kg,
pounds/1,000 gallons, mg/L, ppm).
• The results of calculations conducted in accordance with the approved NMP to
determine the amount of manure, litter, or process wastewater to apply.
• The amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater applied to each field during the
previous 12 months.
• For any CAFO that implements an NMP that addresses rates of application in
accordance with the narrative rate approach:
- The results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus conducted during the
previous 12 months.
- The data used in calculations conducted in accordance with the methodology in the
approved NMP to determine rates of nitrogen and phosphorus application from
manure, litter, and process wastewater.
- The amount of any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months.
• All required records for manure transferred off-site to another entity.
Reviewing consecutive years of annual reports can reveal whether a CAFO is increasing
production or changing nutrient management practices.
Chapter 15 - Page 383
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Discharge and Monitoring Reports
Permitted CAFOs are required to report
certain information associated with
discharges. CAFO permits might also
include ambient stream monitoring, or
other special monitoring requirements.
State regulations might establish similar
discharge reporting and other
monitoring requirements for
unpermitted CAFOs. The CAFO inspector
should review all monitoring and
discharge information in the facility file
to get an idea of the nature and
frequency of facility discharges, if any.
Facility Compliance and Enforcement
History
Previous inspection reports will document general CAFO information and site photos, as well as
problems or concerns. Inspectors who have visited the CAFO for NPDES or other regulatory
programs may also be contacted to
provide additional information or answer
questions about the facility. The CAFO
inspector will find it useful to have a copy
of photos from past inspections to see
how the CAFO has changed and if photo-
documented compliance issues have
been resolved.
Other EPA staff and state personnel
should be consulted regarding
correspondence, inspection reports,
permits, and permit applications for
individual facilities. They can provide
compliance, enforcement, and litigation
history; special exemptions and waivers
applied for and granted or denied; citizen
complaints and action taken; process operational problems and solutions; pollution problems
and solutions; and, other proposed or historical remedial actions.
The CAFO's history of enforcement actions and its response to them tell a story about the
operator and production practices. For example, inspecting a CAFO with a history of production
area discharges will likely involve extensive review of manure management records, depth
marker logs, and corrective actions. The CAFO inspector will want to examine manure storage
structures, the production area, and flow paths for evidence of discharge. The CAFO inspector
Considerations When Reviewing Annual Reports
S Are the reports complete? If not what information is
missing?
S Have there been any significant operational changes at
the CAFO over time (i.e., new construction at the
facility)?
S Does reported annual manure production seem
reasonable for the number of reported animals and
does the CAFO use the same manure production factors
each year (e.g., weight or volume of manure per
animal)?
S Is the amount of manure land applied or transferred
similar to the amount of manure generated?
S Does the amount of acreage available seem adequate
for the amount of manure land applied?
Are nutrient calculations consistent with the approved
NMP?
Facility Compliance and Enforcement History
Checklist
S Previous inspection reports.
S Documentation of past compliance violations and the
status of requested regulatory corrective action, if
any.
S Enforcement actions such as compliance schedules
and consent orders.
S Status of current and pending litigation against
facility.
S Previous deficiency notices issued to facility.
~ Complaints and reports, follow-up studies, findings,
and remedial action.
•*/ Correspondence between the CAFO and local, state,
and federal agencies.
Chapter 15 - Page 384
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
might also consider conducting this inspection during a storm event or at the end of a wet
weather period, including snowmelt.
Sampling
If sampling is to be performed, part of the pre-inspection process will involve collecting,
organizing, and preparing sampling equipment. The inspector's CAFO Inspection Plan should
include whether sampling is expected and, if so, what types of sampling will be performed. The
inspector should also prepare a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) or a quality assurance project
plan (QAPP).
Sampling equipment will vary according to the media sampled, manure type (liquid, slurry, dry)
if manure will be sampled, chemical parameters, and inspection type. Appendix AM, "Sampling
Procedures and Equipment," includes a comprehensive list of field sampling equipment; the
inspector should evaluate the equipment planned for use against documented sampling
protocol. All equipment must be checked, calibrated, tested, logged, and packed for the
inspection.
The inspector must plan for the proper preservatives and/or preservation methods (e.g.,
coolers with cold packs). In addition, if certain types of samples have holding times (i.e., a
certain period of time that must not be exceeded before delivering the sample to the
laboratory), the inspector should ensure that inspection time plus travel time do not exceed
this threshold. For this reason, sampling may need to be scheduled towards the end of the
inspection, and a time buffer built into the schedule to account for unanticipated delays. The
inspector may have to pre-arrange to have samples delivered and analyzed at a local laboratory
(near the facility) if samples cannot be delivered to an EPA laboratory within sample holding
times. The inspector should also be prepared to follow the appropriate chain-of-custody
procedures and provide the necessary documentation to ensure the results can be used in
enforcement or other actions, as necessary. Refer to Basic InspectorTraining or NPDES
Inspection Manual for more information on chain-of-custody and documentation.
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
EPA developed the QAPP as a tool for project managers and planners to document the type and
quality of data needed for the agency to make environmental decisions and to describe the
methods for collecting and assessing those data. The QAPP is required for all EPA projects
resulting in the generation, collection, and use of primary environmental data such as water
quality monitoring data. The QAPP ensures that the needed management and technical
practices are in place so that environmental data used to support agency decisions are of
adequate quality and usability for their intended purpose.
Prior to the start of data collection, a QAPP defining the goals and scope of the project, the
need for sample collection, a description of the data quality objectives and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities to ensure data validity and usability must be
developed by the project officer. Thereafter, a review by all parties to the sampling effort, such
as a Quality Assurance (QA) Officer, must be conducted. Also, EPA laboratories will require a
copy of an approved QAPP prior to conducting any sample analysis. This QAPP requirement
Chapter 15 - Page 385
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
applies to both EPA staff and outside contractors. The process for approval of the QAPP and
other documents related to the data collection activity should be outlined in the lead
organization's Quality Management Plan (QMP) (see Appendix AN, "Sample Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP)").
Inspection Notification
EPA conducts both announced and unannounced inspections. Depending upon the specific
circumstances and regional compliance strategies, the CAFO operator may or may not be
notified in advance of the inspection. When EPA is leading the inspection, some regions notify
the permittee in advance with a letter issued pursuant to Clean Water Act section 308, or "308
Letter," that the CAFO is scheduled for an inspection (see Appendix E, "Sample CWA Section
308 Information Collection Request Letter (308 Letter)"). The 308 Letter notifies the permittee
that an inspection is imminent and usually requests information regarding on-site safety and
biosecurity requirements. The 308 Letter may specify the exact date of the inspection, if
coordination with the permittee is required. The 308 Letter also is used to inform the permittee
of the right to assert a claim of confidentiality. The 308 Letter may be issued in conjunction with
verbal communication with the CAFO operator to schedule an appropriate meeting time and
location and to discuss biosecurity and safety procedures. The 308 Letter can also be used to
obtain information prior to the inspection regarding manure storage and handling practices,
not otherwise available. The CAFO inspector should consult with regional management
regarding the process for developing and issuing these letters.
The CAFO inspector may also notify the appropriate state regulatory agency that an inspection
will be conducted, and typically must notify an Indian country regulatory agency in advance of
inspections to be conducted in their jurisdictions. The CAFO inspector should be prepared to
respond to requests from state or Indian country agency staff to ride-along or participate in the
inspection, whether for information exchange or training purposes. EPA policy with respect to
Indian country inspections and notifying state agencies is addressed in the NPDES Inspection
Manual; EPA Regions may have additional guidance with respect to pre-inspection notification.
CAFO INSPECTION PLAN
Developing a CAFO Inspection Plan is the final step of the pre-inspection process and will assist
the CAFO inspector in performing the actual CAFO inspection. The CAFO inspector should
develop a comprehensive inspection plan to define the inspection type, objectives, tasks and
procedures, resources required to fulfill the objectives, tentative inspection schedule, and
reporting deadlines. The following items need to be considered relative to the type of
inspection (e.g., status determination, permit compliance, follow-up, settlement, or complaint
inspection).
• Objectives (depends on inspection type):
- What is the purpose of the inspection?
- What is the compliance determination strategy?
- What is to be accomplished on-site?
- What is to be accomplished after leaving the site?
Chapter 15 - Page 386
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Tasks (depends on purpose of inspection):
- What specific tasks will be conducted?
- What records will be reviewed?
- What information must be collected (photocopies, samples, etc.)?
• Procedures (depends on activities anticipated):
- What procedures are to be used?
- Will the inspection require special procedures?
• Resources:
- What personnel will be required?
- What equipment will be required?
• Schedule:
- What will be the time requirements and order of inspection activities?
- When will the inspection report be sent to the facility?
• Pre-notification/coordination:
- Will the facility be notified in advance of the inspection? If so, how many days in
advance and by what method (phone, mail, email, fax, or some combination of
these)?
- Does the inspection need to be coordinated with EPA attorneys or other EPA
compliance staff or regulatory programs?
- Which other federal and state agencies need advance notice of the inspection?
- If not done in advance, how and when will the facility be notified of the inspection?
The outline of tentative inspection objectives and records that will be reviewed should be
prepared in advance and can be presented to the CAFO representative(s) during the opening
conference.
Review Checklists
In addition to the specific items mentioned in this chapter, to facilitate the CAFO inspection
process, a detailed National CAFO checklist based on the NPDES CAFO regulations and CAFO
ELG requirements has been developed. The checklist is useful in collecting information
associated with the NMP and the minimum practices. EPA Regions have developed similar
checklists particular to regional issues and some have prepared sector-specific checklists (see
Appendix Al, "Inspection Checklist," and Appendix AJ, "Regional Inspection Checklists"). The
CAFO inspector should select or develop a checklist appropriate to the CAFO: permitted,
unpermitted, or sector-specific.
Chapter 15 - Page 387
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The CAFO inspector should photocopy appropriate checklist(s) to be used during the inspection
and consider bringing extra copies in case the facility requests a copy during the inspection. The
CAFO inspector should also consult this checklist when reviewing the CAFO's facility files.
C. THE CAFO INS P ECHO N—F AC I LI T Y TOUR
This section covers the CAFO site inspection facility tour including entry activities, the opening
conference, limited on-site records and document review, the facility tour, and the closing
conference. Section 4, "The CAFO Inspection—Records Review and the NMP," will cover how to
evaluate the facility's records and implementation of the terms of the NMP.
The information presented in this section is intended to be comprehensive and broadly
applicable to the majority of EPA inspections at permitted and unpermitted CAFOs; however,
there will always be situations that require inspectors to rely on their best professional
judgment, knowledge of the regulations, and familiarity with EPA Region-specific policies. As
such, the inspector should recognize that each inspection is different and will generally involve
the activities discussed below; the amount of time dedicated to each may vary. In addition, an
inspection might only include a subset of the elements below as dictated by the compliance
determination strategy and the CAFO Inspection Plan. Nevertheless, all inspections do share
common components and the general structure and approach to an inspection will not vary
significantly across facilities and inspection types.
ARRIVAL ON-SITE
CAFO inspections may be announced or unannounced; entry procedures are similar for both.
However, during an announced inspection the inspector may have an easier time locating the
responsible facility representative. As described in Section B, a 308 Letter may be used to notify
the CAFO of an upcoming inspection. See an example 308 Letter in Appendix E. A 308 Letter can
also be used to gather information important to the inspection prior to the actual announced or
unannounced inspection.
The inspector should arrive at the CAFO at the scheduled time, if announced, or during normal
working hours if unannounced. The owner, operator, foreman, or other responsible person
should be located as soon as the inspector arrives on the premises. The inspector may want to
present the CAFO representative with an official inspection introduction letter identifying the
purpose of the inspection, inspection authority and contact phone numbers. See Appendix AL,
"Inspection Introduction Letter." As previously mentioned, the inspector should recognize that
the CAFO may be a small business with a minimal number of employees. The inspection may
have to wait until a livestock truck is loaded or unloaded, cows are milked, or other routine
activities are finished. In addition, the inspector may have to knock on the door of the on-site
residence to locate the responsible individual, especially if the inspection is unannounced.
Credentials
When a knowledgeable CAFO representative(s) has been located, the inspectors must
introduce themselves as EPA inspectors and present official EPA credentials. Inspectors should
also provide a business card with contact information to the CAFO representative. The
Chapter 15 - Page 388
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
credentials identify the holder as a lawful representative of the regulatory agency and
authorized person to perform CAFO inspections. The inspector's credential must be presented
regardless of whether identification is requested. If any EPA staff members accompanying the
inspector do not have credentials, they must have their EPA identification readily available.
If the CAFO representative(s) question the inspector's credentials after the credentials have
been reviewed, those individuals should telephone the appropriate state or EPA Regional Office
for verification of the inspector's identification. The inspector should keep possession of the
credentials at all times; credentials must never leave the sight of the inspector or be photo-
copied.
Consent
Consent to inspect the premises must be given by the owner or operator at the time of the
inspection. Expressed consent is not necessary; absence of an expressed denial constitutes
consent. As long as the inspector is allowed to enter the CAFO, entry is considered voluntary
and consensual, unless the inspector is expressly told to leave the premises.
Reluctance to Give Consent
Some CAFO representatives will be agreeable to the inspection, but others will require
additional explanation and/or clarification regarding EPA's authority to inspect their operation.
Inspectors may want to share EPA's fact sheet with answers to commonly asked questions to
help livestock and poultry operation owners and operators understand what to expect from
EPA NPDES inspections (EPA, 2014). The factsheet is available at
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/fact-sheet-livestock-and-poultry-operation-inspections.
Examples where entry or consent may require more time and explanation include areas with
newly issued NPDES CAFO permits, CAFOs that have not previously been inspected, and
inspections following well-publicized compliance settlements. In some cases, representatives
may be reluctant to give entry consent because of misunderstood responsibilities,
inconvenience, or other reasons that may be overcome by diplomacy and discussion. If consent
to enter is denied, the inspector should follow denial of entry procedures detailed in the section
below.
Whenever there is a difficulty in gaining consent to enter, inspectors should tactfully probe the
reasons and work with the CAFO representative to overcome the problems. Care should be
taken, however, to avoid threats of any kind, inflammatory discussions, or deepening of
misunderstandings. If the situation is beyond the authority or ability of the inspector to
manage, the inspector should follow contingency plans identified before the inspection.
Typically, those plans include contacting the inspector's supervisor and/or the Office of
Regional Counsel for further direction.
Denial of Entry or Consent
If the CAFO representative considers the inspection to be an adversarial proceeding, the legal
authority, techniques, and inspector's competency may be challenged. CAFO representatives
may also display antagonism toward EPA personnel. In all cases, the inspector must cordially
explain the inspection authorities and the protocols followed. If explanations are not
Chapter 15 - Page 389
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
satisfactory or disagreements cannot be resolved, the inspectors should leave and obtain
further direction from their EPA supervisor or EPA's Office of Regional Counsel. Professionalism
and politeness must prevail at all times.
Under no circumstances should the inspector discuss
potential penalties or do anything that may be construed
by the facility representative as coercive or threatening.
Inspectors should use discretion and avoid potentially
threatening or inflammatory situations. If inspectors are
threatened or otherwise uncomfortable, they should
leave the facility immediately, document the
confrontation, and report it immediately to their EPA supervisor or EPA staff attorney. If
feasible, statements from witnesses should be obtained and included in the documentation.
If the facility representative asks the inspector to leave the premises after the inspection has
begun, the inspector should leave as quickly as possible following the procedures discussed
previously for denial of entry. All activities and evidence obtained before the withdrawal of
consent are valid so the inspector should carefully document the time the inspection ended.
The inspector is expected to act professionally, adhere to all biosecurity requirements, and
collect all personal and government equipment before leaving the facility.
If, during the inspection, the CAFO representative denies or revokes access to parts of the
facility integral to evaluating compliance with the regulations, the inspector should record the
circumstances surrounding the denial of access and of the portion of the inspection that could
not be completed. The inspector should then complete the rest of the inspection. After leaving
the CAFO, the inspectors should contact their EPA supervisor or staff attorney to determine
whether a warrant should be obtained to complete the entire inspection.
Authority to Conduct Inspections
EPA has the authority to regulate and inspect CAFOs through requirements established in the
CWA and its implementing regulations:
• Section 301 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants to waters of the US unless
in compliance with an NPDES permit or other provisions of the CWA.
• Section 502(12) of the CWA defines "discharge of pollutants" to mean the addition of a
pollutant to navigable waters from a "point source." The term "point source," in turn,
specifically includes CAFOs. Section 502(14).
• Section 308 of the CWA authorizes EPA to enter any premises in which an effluent
source is located. This broad authority allows EPA to inspect operations where
discharges from point sources such as CAFOs are suspected or located. It also allows EPA
to review and copy records and collect discharge samples or other information from
effluent sources, as required, to carry out the objectives of the CWA, which includes
determining whether NPDES permit conditions are being met or whether an operation is
discharging without a permit.
Entry Tip
The inspector should maintain a
neutral tone throughout the
inspection and avoid confrontational
subjects, particularly politics, animal
welfare, environmental issues and
livestock agriculture.
Chapter 15 - Page 390
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Section 402 of the CWA requires NPDES permittees to comply with the terms of the
permit, including any specific discharge limits and operating requirements.
• The regulations at 40 CFR 122.23 and 122.42 establish the NPDES permitting
requirements for CAFOs.
• The regulations at 40 CFR 123.26 establish procedures and objectives for routine
inspections of NPDES-permitted facilities by state programs.
Claims of Confidentiality
The inspector should explain the permittee's right to claim material as confidential and that the
inspector may examine areas related to waste production or storage even if the permittee has
asserted claims of confidentiality. See the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual (EPA 2016) for
details on how to handle claims of confidential business information.
Waivers, Releases, and Sign-In Logs
The CAFO operator may provide the inspector with a blank sign-in sheet, log, or visitor register.
The inspector should clarify what they can and cannot sign with EPA Regional Counsel prior to
the inspection. However, EPA inspectors or other EPA representatives are prohibited from
signing any type of "waiver" or "visitor release" that relieves the CAFO of responsibility for
injury or that would limit the rights of EPA to use data obtained from the facility. If such a
waiver or release is presented, the inspectors should politely explain that they cannot sign.
They may request and sign a blank sign-in sheet.
Explaining the CAFO operator's right to claim confidentiality for certain types of information
may help to alleviate concerns about use of data. If inspectors are refused entry because they
do not sign the release, they should leave and immediately report all pertinent facts to the
appropriate supervisor and/or legal staff. All events surrounding the refused entry should be
fully documented. Problems should be discussed cordially and professionally.
OPENING CONFERENCE
Once credentials have been presented and legal entry established, the inspector can proceed to
outline inspection plans with the CAFO representative(s). At the opening conference, the
inspector provides names of the inspectors, the purpose of the inspection, authorities under
which the inspection is being conducted, provides a copy of the NPDES regulations or other fact
sheets concerning the regulation of CAFOs, and procedures to be followed. EPA encourages
cooperation between the inspectors and CAFO representative to ensure that the inspection is
efficient, professional, and successful.
The inspector will explain the order of activities during the inspection; records review followed
by facility tour or vice versa. The inspectors should tell the operator how long they expect to be
on-site. This will help to eliminate wasted time by allowing representatives to make records and
personnel available. The inspector may have to be flexible to accommodate previously
scheduled farm activities like milking, feeding, or unforeseen emergencies.
Chapter 15 - Page 391
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If not provided in advance, a written list of CAFO records needed for the inspection should be
provided to the CAFO representatives. This will help the representatives to gather the records
and make them available for the inspector. Commonly required records include, but are not
limited to:
• NPDES permit.
• Nutrient management plan.
• Visual inspection logs (e.g., inspection of
water lines, wastewater impoundments,
lagoon depth recording).
• Manure transfer records.
• Laboratory soil and manure test results.
• Operator identified deficiencies and corrective
actions.
• Calibration records for nutrient application equipment.
• Discharge monitoring records.
• Records of inspecting nutrient application equipment for leaks.
• Nutrient application records.
• Mortality management records.
The inspector should also identify structures and activities that need to be evaluated during the
facility tour. The inspector should be prepared to answer questions about the relevancy of
activities and buildings to regulatory compliance. At this point in the opening conference the
inspector should ask about site-specific biosecurity equipment and procedures that need to be
followed during the inspection, if the topic has not already been discussed. The biosecurity
discussion should include:
• Site specific protocols that must be observed by the inspector (e.g., shower in/shower
out, booties or foot wash, gloves).
• Biosecurity concerns that may dictate the order of areas visited, or areas that are
accessible to the inspector. See Section B for a
more detailed discussion of biosecurity.
Finally, the inspector will provide an overview of
general inspection follow-up procedures. This
information will be repeated at the end of the
inspection. Inspectors should check with their state or
EPA Regional contacts for any state or region-specific
protocols.
The inspector will then turn the opening conference
over to the CAFO representative(s) for an overview of
the operation with a focus on manure/nutrient
Records Tip
Sending the CAFO a list in advance of
records that may be reviewed during the
inspection will expedite the on-site records
review. Notifying the CAFO officials prior to
the inspection will enable them to
assemble the appropriate records as well as
give them an idea of what to expect from
the inspection.
Ask Basic Facility Information
During the Opening Conference
• Verification of the name, address,
and telephone number of the
facility.
• Who is the authorized
representative for the facility?
• Is the facility leased, along with
contact information for lessor and
lessee?
• Questions concerning the facility's
history, including any discharges.
Chapter 15 - Page 392
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
management and any questions the representative(s) may have about the inspection or the
inspection process.
Before the record and document review begins, the inspector and CAFO representative(s) may
review facility diagrams, maps or aerial images (e.g., Google Earth, TerraServer, or similar) and
label significant structures such as the production area, feed and manure storage areas, land
application areas, flow paths, property boundaries, drinking water wells, and other facility
features. If aerial images are used it may be helpful to provide one close view of the production
area and at least one larger scale view of the entire operation. These images can be scanned
and attached to the inspection report.
RECORD AND ON-SITE DOCUMENT REVIEW
Federal CAFO regulations require both permitted and unpermitted large CAFOs to maintain
records. Unpermitted large CAFOs that land apply manure are required to keep records to
demonstrate that they only discharge agricultural stormwater from land application areas. See
Chapter 4.1.8. of the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a) for a detailed
discussion of the agricultural stormwater exemption. Permitted CAFOs must maintain records
to demonstrate compliance with their NPDES permit.
Regardless of the CAFOs permit status, the inspector should first verify basic information about
the facility to identify changes in ownership or operational characteristics.
¦S Do EPA records correctly identify the CAFO owner, operator, and contact information?
¦S What is the size of the facility, both acreage (production area and non-production area)
and number and type of animals?
¦S How does the CAFO handle and store manure?
¦S What are the current nutrient management practices, cropping, and location of land
application sites?
The inspector should review CAFO records to see if recordkeeping requirements are being met.
The review of available records and reports should answer the following questions:
¦S Is the CAFO collecting the required data?
•S Is all the required information available?
¦S Is the information current?
•S Is the information being maintained for the required time period?
¦S Do the records reviewed indicate areas needing further investigation?
¦S Are the records organized?
•S Do the records demonstrate compliance with the CAFO's NPDES permit status (e.g., if
permitted, has the CAFO submitted Annual Reports)?
Records specific to land application requirements are covered in Section D.
Chapter 15 - Page 393
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
FACILITY TOUR
The inspector will ask the facility representative to accompany him or her on a tour of the
facility. The purpose of the facility tour is to assess existing conditions, gather information to
determine if the CAFO is operating in compliance with the CAFO's NPDES permit, or if the
facility needs to submit a permit application or notice of intent (NOI) for NPDES permit
coverage. During this phase of the inspection, the inspector will observe and photo document
activities, structures and processes used to maintain the compliance with the CWA and/or the
CAFO's NPDES permit. During the facility tour, the inspector should visit the following areas of
the CAFO:
• Animal housing, feeding, feed storage,
mortality management and
maintenance areas.
• Manure and process wastewater
collection, transport, storage, and
treatment areas.
• Manure and process wastewater land
application areas.
The inspector needs to carefully document
the visual inspection with notes, photographs
and/or videos. Occasionally the CAFO
representative will take duplicate photos for
their records. If the CAFO is discharging
during the inspection or there is evidence that the facility has recently discharged, the inspector
might also take samples. See Appendix AM, "Sampling Procedures and Equipment" for more
information on sampling. During the facility tour, the inspector might determine that additional
records or documents need review. The inspector should inform the facility representative as
soon as this has been determined to facilitate the retrieval of the needed information.
CAFO Operational Overview
Many details of how CAFOs are operated are provided in Appendix AD, "Animal Industry
Overview." Refer to that section for details on sector-specific confinement facilities, as well as
typical manure and mortality management practices.
Identification of Discharges
Basic considerations that can lead to discharges of manure, litter and process wastewater from
the production area and land application areas are included here. See additional detail below.
Production Area Discharges
Production area discharges most commonly occur at spillways, man-made ditches or pipes
designed to allow overflows during storm events. These overflow features are often located on
the berms of a CAFO's wastewater impoundments or in and around animal feed storage areas,
such as silage bunkers. Wastewater may also exit the facility at low lying areas where there is
Documentation Tips
¦S Make sure photos contain a distinguishing
characteristic like a unique depth marker or
buildings in the background.
S Impermanent items, such as vegetation, do not
make good reference points as they can be
easily removed.
V Photos should include an accurate date/time
stamp that shows it was taken during the time
period of the inspection.
S Some digital cameras include built-in global
positioning system (GPS) tagging that allows an
inspector to associate each photo with the
geographic location where it was created.
Chapter 15 - Page 394
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
no berm. Additional discharge locations may include rodent holes and open tile drains that are
designed to carry wastewater away from the production area. Common scenarios that may lead
to wastewater discharges from the production area include:
• Undersized or no feed, manure, or mortality storage capacity.
• Poor feed, manure, mortality storage structure operation and maintenance.
• No or undersized diversion structures.
• Poorly located waste and/or material storage areas (i.e., too close to drainage ditches or
waterways).
• Insufficient dewatering.
• Clogged and/or broken water lines.
Land Application Area Discharges
Common scenarios that may lead to wastewater discharges from the land application areas
include:
• Clogged and/or broken manure transportation lines/hoses.
• Over-application of manure, litter or process wastewater.
• Land applying manure, litter, or process wastewater to saturated, frozen or snow-
covered ground (Note: Some states have manure spreading bans in winter months;
check state technical standard).
• Type, size, location and maintenance of buffers.
Note that a CAFO's land application discharges that meet the definition of "agricultural
stormwater" do not require an NPDES permit.
The following list provides example factors affecting the likelihood or frequency of discharges of
manure, litter, and process wastewater:
• Slope of feed lot and surrounding land
• Feedlot surfacing (e.g., concrete or soil)
• Climate (e.g., arid or wet)
• Type and condition of soils (e.g., sand, karst)
• Amount and duration of rainfall
• Volume and quantity of runoff
• High water table
The inspector should look for evidence of actual or past discharges. Moist soil or ponded water
located outside of the production area may be indicative of a recent discharge. More obvious
evidence that a discharge has occurred may include erosive channels and/or dead vegetation
from nitrogen burns leading from the production area and/or land application areas. In
addition, wastewater discharges can carry debris and deposit them on the ground. Manure
Chapter 15 - Page 395
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
located in a water or outside the production area and eutrophication in waters adjacent to the
CAFO are other signs that might indicate recent or regular discharges.
CAFO Discharges to a Water of the United States
Where evidence of an actual or past overflow or spill is observed, it is important to find out
whether it enters a water of the United States. It only becomes an unauthorized discharge if it
enters a water of the United States. A water of the United States determination can be a
complex process and involves consideration of both facts and legal standards. The inspector
should consult with regional or state program and legal experts. The inspector's role is not to
make waters of the United States determinations, but to collect the evidence needed for the
state or regional experts to make the determinations if point source discharges reach waters of
the United States. Inspectors should contact state or EPA experts for additional information or
for training opportunities.
A short review of key points relevant to discharges from CAFOs follows.
• A permit is required for a discharge of pollutants from a CAFO to waters of the United
States. A CAFO may not discharge without an NPDES permit. NPDES permits authorize
CAFOs to discharge pollutants to waters of the United States when they are in
compliance with permit conditions. Enforcement actions may be taken for any discharge
to waters of the United States that occurs without an NPDES permit or for violations of
permit conditions.
• Discharges from CAFOs to waters of the United States are point source discharges
subject to NPDES permit requirements. Any discharge to a water of the United States
from a CAFO is a discharge from a point source and must be authorized by an NPDES
permit
• Only CAFOs that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States need NPDES
permits. Coverage under an NPDES permit is not required for a CAFO that does not
discharge pollutants to waters of the United States.
• Unexpected discharges are not exempt from permit requirements. The CWA does not
distinguish between intentional and unintentional discharges in determining whether a
permit is required. The fact that an unpermitted discharge was unexpected is not a
defense to an enforcement action.
• Discharges are not limited to manure, litter or process wastewater. CAFO discharges
subject to permitting requirements include discharges of any pollutant, including but
not limited to manure, litter and process wastewater, silage/feed and bedding
pollutants.
• Discharges resulting from land application of manure, litter or process wastewater
require a permit, unless they qualify as agricultural stormwater. Discharges from the
land application area are exempt from NPDES permitting requirements if they consist
only of agricultural stormwater discharges. Section A describes the CWA "agricultural
stormwater exemption."
Chapter 15 - Page 396
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Discharge Pathways at CAFOs
Discharges from a CAFO to waters of the United States may originate in the CAFO's production
area, land application area(s), or other parts of the CAFO not specifically included in either of
those definitions. For example, discharges of process wastewater could occur when equipment
used to spread manure or clean out poultry houses is rinsed at a CAFO's truck wash facility.
To identify discharges, it is necessary to look at the operation as a whole and the variety of
ways in which pollutants may be discharged looking at man-made components, operational
features of the CAFO, as well as natural characteristics that can cause a CAFO to discharge.
Note that a CAFO itself is a point source; a discharge to a water of the United States from a
CAFO must be authorized by an NPDES permit regardless of whether the discharge occurs
through an additional discrete conveyance (Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 2005) or if the
discharge is to land not owned by the CAFO, and then to a water of the U.S, the CAFO is
discharging pollutants to waters of the United States (Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co., 1980).
Production Area Discharges
This section focuses on the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance aspects of CAFO
production areas. Characteristics of the facility's
production area may significantly influence its
likelihood of discharging pollutants to waters of
the United States. Examining these features of a
CAFO's operation will help in identifying
discharge pathways.
As defined by the EPA regulations, a CAFO's
production area includes the animal confinement
area, the manure storage area, the raw materials
storage area, and waste containment areas, as
well as areas for egg washing and mortality
management (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)). Because
discharges can arise from any of part of the
production area, the entire production area
should be evaluated when determining whether
a CAFO discharges from its production area.
When evaluating whether a CAFO discharges,
certain considerations are applicable to many
CAFOs in any animal sector, while others may be
specific to a certain type of facility. The sections
below include both general considerations and those that may not be broadly applicable.
However, the following sections are not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of every
possible mechanism for production area discharges. Instead, the sections below highlight the
range of potential discharge pathways to consider when evaluating whether an individual CAFO
discharges from its production area.
Production area means that part of an AFO
(including CAFOs) that includes the animal
confinement area, the manure storage area, the
raw materials storage area, and the waste
containment areas.
• The animal confinement area includes but is
not limited to open lots, housed lots,
feedlots, confinement houses, stall barns,
free stall barns, milk rooms, milking centers,
cowyards, barnyards, medication pens,
walkers, animal walkways, and stables.
• The manure storage area includes but is not
limited to lagoons, runoff ponds, storage
sheds, stockpiles, under house or pit storages,
liquid impoundments, static piles, and
composting piles.
• The raw materials storage area includes but is
not limited to feed silos, silage bunkers, and
bedding materials.
• The waste containment area includes but is
not limited to settling basins, and areas
within berms and diversions which separate
uncontaminated storm water.
Also included in the definition of production area
is any egg washing or egg processing facility, and
any area used in the storage, handling, treatment,
or disposal of mortalities. 40 CFR 122.23(b)(8).
Chapter 15 - Page 397
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Discharges from the Production Area: All Animal Sectors
This section describes factors relevant to determining whether a CAFO discharges that apply to
all types of livestock, including animal types not specifically discussed in this guidance, such as
veal calves, turkeys, ducks, horses, and goats.
The Animal Confinement Area
The animal confinement area includes but is not limited to open lots, housed lots, feedlots,
confinement houses, stall barns, free stall barns, milk rooms, milking centers, cow yards,
barnyards, medication pens, walkers, animal walkways and stables (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)).
A CAFO's animal confinement area should be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained in a way that
clean water diversion mechanisms, if any, are fully
functional, and all process wastewater is collected and
stored. Water that contacts any raw materials,
products, or byproducts including manure, litter, feed,
milk, eggs or bedding is process wastewater (40 CFR
122.23(b)(7)) and cannot be discharged unless
authorized by an NPDES permit. Note that a discharge
from animal watering systems is a discharge from the
CAFO. Direct contact between confined animals and
surface water flowing through the production area,
often for drinking or cooling, is a discharge from the
CAFO.
Process wastewater means water directly
or indirectly used in the operation of the
AFO for any or all of the following:
spillage or overflow from animal or
poultry watering systems; washing,
cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure
pits, or other AFO facilities; direct contact
swimming, washing, or spray cooling of
animals; or dust control. Process
wastewater also includes any water that
contacts any raw materials, products, or
byproducts including manure, litter, feed,
milk, eggs or bedding (40 CFR
122.23(b)(7)).
The relevant minimum measure is to prevent direct contact of confined animals with waters of
the United States (40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(iv)).
Manure Storage and Handling
During the tour of a CAFO's production area, the inspector should visually check and note any
failures to follow Minimum Measure 1: Ensure adequate storage of manure, litter, and process
wastewater, including procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage
facilities (40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(i)).
Siting, design, construction, and maintenance of storage structures are important
considerations when determining whether a CAFO has an adequate waste storage and handling
system in place. In addition, the number of animals and the amount of manure, litter, or
process wastewater anticipated to be generated during the critical storage period13 should be
considered. All process wastewater generated at the site should be considered when
determining the adequacy of the CAFO's storage capacity. Operation and maintenance factors
include the frequency of regular inspections of all storage structures to ensure integrity of
13 This term means the storage period that provides the capacity to store the maximum amount of manure and
process wastewater plus precipitation events less evaporation that will be generated until optimal land application
or other drawdown of storage (e.g., for transfer off-site). See also Page 2-12 of EPA's Managing Manure Nutrients
at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (EPA, 2004).
Chapter 15 - Page 398
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
berms, valves, and other control devices, and to determine the fill level of liquid
impoundments.
Manure storage and handling practices differ depending on whether the CAFO operates a
system for handling manure in liquid or dry form, or a combination of the two.
For liquid manure handling systems, it is important to consider whether manure storage
structures are designed and constructed to eliminate the possibility of overflow and/or
managed in a manner to prevent any overflow from reaching a water of the United States.
Proper maintenance includes maintaining capacity for freeboard and direct precipitation and
preserving the structural integrity of the pond or lagoon by managing levels of manure,
wastewater and sludge appropriately. Photo 17-1 illustrates a lagoon with vegetation growing
in it. Growth of vegetation on the manure inside a storage structure decreases the capacity of
the system and, may be an indication that manure solids have not been removed at appropriate
intervals to maintain adequate storage capacity. Factors that may lead to structural failure
include erosion, growth of trees or shrubs on berms, large animals walking on lagoon berms,
and burrowing wildlife. A proper maintenance plan should address those factors. Embankments
of any manure storage structure should have protective vegetation such as grass, be wel I
compacted, intact, dry, show no signs of erosion, and have sufficient access for equipment such
as pumps and agitators. Pooling on the side of the pond or lagoon could be indicative of
leaking. Ask the facility representative if the manure structure is lined with any material to
prevent leaking such as concrete, clay, plastic, etc.
Dairy cows
Photo 17-1. This lagoon at a dairy CAFO is upslope from a water of the United States and overflowing. In
addition, cows stand on the embankments of the far side of the lagoon, which may degrade the embankments
over time, and vegetation is growing in the lagoon, which indicates poor maintenance. (Source: EPA Region 6.)
Although the design of a liquid manure storage structure is critical in determining the capacity
of that structure to contain manure so that a discharge will not occur, the design standard
alone does not necessarily guarantee that no discharge will occur. For example, a CAFO with a
liquid storage structure designed for the 25-year, 24-hour storm is not categorically excluded
Chapter 15 - Page 399
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
from the requirement to seek permit coverage based ori this design standard.14 Larger storms
and chronic rainfall events do occur, and production areas built to the 25-year, 24-hour storm
design standard can and do discharge during such precipitation events. A permit is required to
authorize a discharge under these circumstances. Proper operation and maintenance of the
structure should also be considered as part of the objective assessment, such as steps to ensure
there are no leaks or other system failures unrelated to storm events.
For permitted CAFOs, a liquid storage structure designed for the 25-year, 24-hour storm can
discharge (because of overflows) during a storm event of any size so long as the facility is
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance with the facility's permit terms
and conditions. Further, certain other discharges may be allowed for permitted CAFOs, which
are not covered by the CAFO effluent guidelines (ELGs). Such discharges are typically managed
by treatment systems or best management practices (BMPs), as determined by the permit
writer's best professional judgment (CWA section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 122.44(a),(k)). For example,
a CAFO's permit might allow discharges from equipment washdown facilities, chilling systems,
boiler systems, and from other areas not covered by the ELGs, such as areas outside houses at
total confinement facilities. For additional details on discharges from areas not covered by the
effluent limitation guidelines for CAFOs, see Chapters 4.1.4, 4.1.5, and 4.1.6 of EPA's NPDES
Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs
(EPA, 2012a). However, there are no
such provisions for unpermitted
CAFOs. Therefore, it is important that
CAFOs whose owners or operators
choose not to have an NPDES permit
be designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained so they do not
discharge during any size
precipitation event.
For dry manure handling systems, it is
important to consider the practices
for moving manure or litter from
animal confinement areas to storage
areas and whether the CAFO has
sufficient capacity to store dry
manure or litter in covered buildings
or otherwise manage it to keep it dry
or contain all runoff.
14 In many cases the BMPs implemented by an unpermitted CAFO to ensure that it does not discharge will be more
rigorous than those required for permitted CAFOs, because the operator of an unpermitted CAFO is never
authorized to discharge under CWA section 301(a). Permitted CAFOs have greater flexibility because, in addition to
being authorized to discharge under the circumstances prescribed by the permit, other discharges can be excused
when the conditions contained in EPA's upset and/or bypass regulations are met (40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n); 73 FR
70,425).
Photo 17-2. This storage structure might have inadequate
capacity for the amount of litter being stored. The area around
the storage shed drains to a water of the U.S. and does not
have any runoff controls. (Source: EPA Region 3)
Chapter 15 - Page 400
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Stockpiles of dry manure or litter are part of the production area, regardless of where they are
located (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)). Small and medium farms occasionally field-stack manure
stockpiles in nearby crop or grazing fields, outside of the main production area. Discharges
could occur from such stockpiles of manure or litter, whether solid or semi-solid, depending on
the location of the stockpile (i.e., proximity of the stockpile to waters of the United States, and
slope of land), exposure to precipitation, and presence of structural controls such as pads,
berms or covers, duration of storage, and management of pile removal. Even temporary
stockpiles could lead to an unauthorized discharge from an unpermitted CAFO if precipitation
that contacts stockpiled manure or litter is subsequently discharged to waters of the United
States.15 Covered storage areas and concrete pads are good management practices that can
reduce contact between precipitation and the stockpile, and thus prevent discharges from
occurring. It is also important to prevent any discharges associated with spillage of manure or
litter. Photos 17-2 and 17-3 illustrate situations where storage practices can lead to discharges
to waters of the United States.
Raw Materials Storage Area
The CAFO's raw materials storage
area includes but is not limited to
feed silos, silage bunkers, and
bedding materials (40 CFR
122.23(b)(8)). As indicated above,
the definition of process
wastewater includes water that
contacts raw materials including
feed and bedding at the CAFO.
Therefore, an evaluation of
whether a CAFO discharges must
consider whether water from feed,
silage and bedding storage areas, if
that water has contacted raw
materials, will be discharged to a
water of the United States. The
inspector should note whether raw
materials are covered and evaluate
storage structures for breaks,
leakage and spills. In the case of silage, the evaluation should also include consideration of any
leachate resulting from the stored silage.
15 EPA has allowed poultry facilities to qualify for the higher numeric thresholds for dry manure handling systems
when they have exposed stockpiles for no more than 15 days (the numeric thresholds for poultry with liquid
manure handling systems are lower, and thus would cover more facilities). However, this 15 day "grace period"
does not apply to whether or not a facility that is defined as a CAFO based on the dry litter numeric thresholds
discharges. Regardless of whether an exposed stockpile is maintained for more than or few than 15 days, any
discharge from manure or litter stockpiles is a discharge from the production area of a CAFO.
Photo 17-3. This stockpile is up to 8 feet tall and 60 feet long
without cover or containment. A creek runs through the wooded
area behind the pile. Any runoff from the stockpile to waters of the
U.S. would be a discharge from the CAFO. (Source: EPA Region 7)
Chapter 15 - Page 401
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CAFOs should have adequate structures and protocols in place to ensure that any water that
has contacted raw materials like feed and bedding will not be discharged to a water of the
United States. Structures to prevent discharges from the raw materials storage area could
include diversion structures to direct runoff or leachate to the CAFO's wastewater storage
structures, or to vegetated treatment areas (VTAs), provided those areas are accounted for in
the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the structures. Where appropriate, the
inspection should include evaluating the adequacy of silage leachate runoff collection and
treatment. Silage management may be in the form of low flow leachate collection and land
application or high flow runoff treatment in a vegetated treatment area. If a VTA system is
used, it must be adequately maintained with consistent coverage of vegetation and be free of
pooling liquids and kill zones.
Commodity and byproduct feed materials are stored in covered structures at many CAFOs.
When handling those materials, CAFO operators should ensure that raw materials are not
spilled in uncovered areas where they could be carried in runoff to a water of the United States.
Clean Water Diversion
Diverting clean water away from the production area minimizes the creation of process
wastewater making it easier for a CAFO to properly manage manure, litter, and process
wastewater. Diversions used to separate uncontaminated stormwater can include berms,
swales, channels, ditches, barn roof drains with diversion structures or French drains around
barns, or even natural topography. Berms and diversions used to prevent uncontaminated
stormwater from entering a waste containment area should be designed and constructed so
that they are large enough to ensure separation of clean stormwater.
During the tour of a permitted CAFO's production area, the inspector should visually check and
note any failures to follow Minimum Measure 3: Ensure that clean water is diverted, as
appropriate, from the production area (40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(iii)).
Waste Containment
The waste containment area includes but is not limited to settling basins, and areas within
berms and diversions which separate uncontaminated stormwater (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)). For
example, waste containment areas include areas where diversion structures are used to
prevent clean stormwater from entering the containment area and contacting the waste or to
keep contaminated runoff from exiting the containment area. Settling basins are also waste
containment areas since they are not designed for long-term storage of manure.
Like manure storage areas, any area that is designed or operated to contain waste must be
sized adequately to contain the volume of waste anticipated, thus ensuring waste will not be
discharged from that area. For unpermitted CAFOs, such structures must be sized to ensure
separation of uncontaminated stormwater to prevent discharge of contaminated stormwater
under all conditions.
Some CAFO operators choose to use berms or other containment structures to contain
accidental spills or overflows from primary storage structures in other parts of the production
Chapter 15 - Page 402
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
area. For example, some operators may use secondary containment berms around liquid
manure storage structures to prevent a discharge to waters of the United States, even in the
event of an overflow from the primary storage structure. Such secondary containment areas
are waste containment areas since they are not primarily intended for long-term storage of
manure. Secondary containment areas help to provide additional protection against discharges
to waters of the United States, particularly for unpermitted CAFOs subject to a no discharge
standard.
Chemical Storage
During the tour of a permitted CAFO's production area, the inspector should visually check and
note any failures to follow Minimum Measure 5: Ensure that chemicals and other contaminants
handled on-site are not disposed of in any manure, litter, process wastewater, or stormwater
storage or treatment system unless specifically designed to treat such chemicals and other
contaminants (40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(v)).
¦S Verify the description of practices implemented to ensure that chemicals and other
contaminants are disposed of properly, as described during the records review portion
of the inspection.
¦S What types (organic and inorganic) and quantities of chemicals are used and stored at
the CAFO, (including pesticides, herbicides, oils, etc.)?
¦S Are there floor drains in the milk parlor or other areas that generate process
wastewater that could be used for chemical disposal? Is wastewater collected in these
drains directed to a manure storage impoundment? Is the storage structure designed to
accept these wastes?
•S Are chemical footbaths located by floor drains?
¦S Does the CAFO have a designated area for chemical storage and mixing? Are floor drains
present in the chemical storage and mixing area?
¦S Is there a designated area for accumulating spent chemicals and other like motor oils,
hydraulic fluid, etc.?
•S Are chemicals labeled with accumulation dates, disposal methods, and other required
information?
¦S Are chemical bottles out of place (e.g., around the lagoon instead of in chemical storage
area)?
Mortality Management
The CAFO's production area also includes "any area used in the storage, handling, treatment, or
disposal of mortalities" (40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)). Relevant factors to consider in assessing whether
the CAFO discharges in connection with mortality management include the methods and
locations for handling and disposal of animal mortalities, mortality rate, storage capabilities and
other site-specific factors. For example, if a CAFO relies on a rendering facility to pick up
carcasses, the CAFO should consider whether there is adequate storage to accommodate all
Chapter 15 - Page 403
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
mortalities between pick-ups and whether the storage method ensures that all clean water
remains clean, or captures all process wastewater generated from water coming into contact
with the carcasses (i.e., nothing reaches waters of the United States). Facilities that dispose of
dead animals on-site need to ensure that there are no discharges from the areas where, for
example, animals are composted or buried. This may include burying carcasses immediately
and making sure runoff from composting areas is contained in a proper storage structure. If
composting is used, the inspector should look for any indicators of improper compost
management including the presence of black leachate, exposed bones, feathers, carcasses, etc.
and to see if the compost area is in an appropriate location to avoid any possible discharges to
a water of the United States. Contact the state university agriculture extension office for
information on composting methods for the area of the inspection. CAFOs should have a plan
for dealing with catastrophic mortality events.
During the tour of a permitted CAFO's
production area, the inspector should
visually check and note any failures to follow
Minimum Measure 2: Ensure proper
management of mortalities (i.e., dead
animals) to ensure that they are not disposed
of in a liquid manure, stormwater, or process
wastewater storage or treatment system
that is not specifically designed to treat
animal mortalities (40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(ii)).
Other Factors Related to the Production Area
Similar considerations apply to other parts of
the production area. Key factors that might
affect whether a discharge occurs from the
production area of any type of CAFO include
the following:
• Exposure of animal waste and feed to precipitation or other water that is subsequently
discharged to waters of the United States.
• Adequacy of structural controls to divert clean water.
• Sufficiency of inspection and maintenance schedules for clean water diversion controls,
such as berms, gutters, and channels.
• Design and maintenance of pumps, pipes, valves, ditches, and drains associated with the
collection of manure and wastewater from the animal confinement area.
• Design, operation, and maintenance of secondary containment, if applicable.
• Type of waste storage system, and the capacity, design, construction, and maintenance
of the system.
• Implementation of standard operating procedures and quality of maintenance protocols
(e.g., for equipment, infrastructure, and practices associated with animal management
Photo 17-4. This CAFO is discharging by disposing of
mortalities in a conveyance that drains to a water of
the United States (Source: EPA Region 4),
Chapter 15 - Page 404
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
and waste handling), including contingency plans for extreme events (e.g., for
equipment loss or failure).
• Drainage of production area and proximity to waters of the United States.
• Whether the animal confinement area prevents direct contact between animals and
waters of the United States.
Land Application Area Discharges
All Animal Sectors
Inspectors at both permitted and unpermitted CAFOs with land application should identify the
distance and direction from the fields used for land application to the nearest waters of the
United States and look for any evidence of manure runoff from application fields towards
waters of the United States.
During the tour of a permitted CAFO's land application areas, the inspector should visually
check and note the following related to Minimum Measure 6: Identify appropriate site-specific
conservation practices to be implemented, including as appropriate buffers or equivalent
practices, to control runoff of pollutants to waters of the United States (40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(vi)). Note Minimum measures 7 and 8 dealing with testing of manure, litter,
process wastewater, and soil, and protocols for land application of manure, litter, or process
wastewater are covered in Section D, "The CAFO Inspection —Records Review and the NMP."
The inspector should verify that any conservation practices such as NRCS conservation practice
codes, buffers, berms, identified during the records review portion of the inspection are
properly implemented on-site. The list below contains some factors an inspector might want to
evaluate to determine whether a facility is implementing appropriate site-specific conservation
practices:
¦S Is tail water from flood or furrow irrigation captured and pumped back to the head of
the field or otherwise contained?
•S Is wastewater ponding or infiltrating around irrigation sprinklers? Ponding could indicate
over-application or leaks.
¦S Is manure applied to frozen, snow covered, or saturated ground or is manure land
applied during a precipitation event?
¦S Is manure incorporated or injected?
¦S Is manure mechanically applied within 100 feet of waters of the United States?
¦S Is there evidence of manure runoff from application fields towards waters of the United
States? Do any land application fields have steep slopes that might cause manure to
more easily runoff from the field to waters of the United States?
¦S Are there no grassed, vegetated, or forested buffers between land application sites and
waters of the United States? Is there evidence of manure application within the 35-foot
vegetated buffer?
Chapter 15 - Page 405
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
^ Does land application equipment appear well-maintained? Are there leaks from
permanently installed manure application and handling equipment, risers, or pipes?
Sector-Specific Factors Relevant to Production Area and Land Application Areas
See Appendix AD, "Animal Industry Overview," for information on typical production methods
and manure management practices.
Dairy Sector
Dairy operations are complex, with various types of covered and uncovered locations for
confining, housing, and milking cows, and have sector-specific design and construction
considerations that are relevant to determining whether the CAFO discharges. Inspectors
should be aware that dairy operations often
include both dry manure handling from calves
and heifers, and wet manure handling from
the mature milking cows. It is important to
determine whether a dairy directs
wastestreams to a proper containment
structure or if waste is managed in a manner
causing it to be discharged from the
production area, to a water of the United
States. These wastestreams include
wastewater from commodity barns, silage
bunkers, and milking parlors. Inspectors
should also consider the possibility of
discharges from portions of the production
area that may be uncovered, such as feed
storage areas, barnyards, exercise lots, animal
walkways and animal pens, including
uncovered portions of calf hutches and
loafing areas (See Photo 17-5).
Dairy operations in warm climates might have cooling ponds designed to cool lactating cows. A
cooling pond for dairy cattle will have a means for fresh water to enter, unlike a stagnant pond,
lagoon, wallow, or mud hole. Any cooling pond that is or has been in use contains process
wastewater because of animal contact (40 CFR 122.23(b)(7)).16 Relevant factors to consider in
determining the likelihood of a cooling pond discharging pollutants to waters of the United
States include the location of the pond relative to waters of the United States, the design of the
pond, and how water removed from the pond is managed (e.g., pumped to a proper
containment structure).
16 As applicable here, process wastewater means water directly or indirectly used in the operation of the AFO for
direct contact swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals. Process wastewater also includes any water which
comes into contact with manure.
Photo 17-5. The dairy CAFO pictured above has had
discharges from the confinement area (noted by the
red dashed line) to a water of the United States
bypassing the waste containment storage structure.
(Source: EPA Region 4)
Chapter 15 - Page 406
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
For other design, construction, operation, and maintenance factors specific to dairy cattle
operations, see the table titled "Summary of Sector-Specific Considerations," below and See
Appendix AD, "Animal Industry Overview," for information on typical production methods and
manure management practices.
Beef Cattle Sector
While some cattle are kept in confinement buildings, most beef operations are on outdoor
feedlots and might have open sheds, windbreaks, or shades. When evaluating whether a beef
cattle operation discharges, an important consideration is whether the feedlot has sufficient
containment for all manure, wastewater and direct precipitation for the critical storage period.
Because the animals and manure are typically not housed under roof at beef cattle operations,
local climate and proximity to waters of the United States should be considered when
evaluating whether beef cattle operations discharge, as well as the design of the animal pens.
Where operations are sloped for drainage, the inspector should determine if drainage results in
a discharge to waters of United States (See Photo 17-6).
Other factors that may be important to consider in this animal sector include the following:
• Management of trough water
overflow.
• Management of uncovered
feed/silage.
• Manure stockpiling and
composting.
• Whether animals have direct
contact with waters of the United
States.
• Systems to manage process
wastewater generated from all
uncovered areas to which animals
have access.
For other design, construction,
operation, and maintenance factors
specific to beef cattle operations, see the table titled "Summary of Sector-Specific
Considerations," below and Appendix AD "Animal Industry Overview," for information on
typical production methods and manure management practices.
Swine Sector
In evaluating whether a swine operation discharges, relevant factors include considerations
specifically related to manure handling systems that are common at these types of operations.
Some swine operations have in-house manure pits (i.e., where manure is collected in a pit
below the animal confinement house) that are designed with sufficient capacity to contain all
manure and wastewater generated in the house until it is pumped out to another storage
Photo 17-6. This section of the beef feedlot production area
has an outlet for manure and process wastewater to a
roadside ditch. If the ditch conveys process wastewater to a
water of the United States, the CAFO discharges.
(Source: EPA Region 7)
Chapter 15 - Page 407
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
structure or for land application. This pump-out may occur between groups, when the barns are
empty of animals, as swine operations rotate animals by groups until they are sent to another
finisher or the processing plant.
Some operations also have pumps to help distribute manure from one section to another, for
example, if the operator notices that the solids level is higher in one section. These are
commonly referred to as deep-pit systems. Relevant factors to consider for CAFOs with such
systems include management of wastewater and manure slurry removal from the pit, including
whether the CAFO has appropriate pump-out schedules and maintenance of hoses or
underground distribution lines, which can run from the pit to the land application areas. The
capacity of a deep-pit system should be evaluated to ensure it can contain all manure and
process wastewater between land application events.
Other swine operations have in-house pits that provide only temporary containment before
removal of the manure and wastewater to a pond, lagoon, or above-ground storage tank.
Operations with these smaller in-house manure pits generally pump out manure more
frequently. Therefore, systems at these swine operations typically rely more heavily on pumps
and pipes than at other swine operations. Some of the problems associated with these types of
operations that can lead to discharges and therefore should be considered when conducting a
site-specific evaluation include: pipe or hose ruptures; overflows from open channels or
collection pits; and direct discharges from a waste storage structure such as a lagoon.
To prevent discharges from occurring, some swine operations construct a secondary
containment system designed to capture any unanticipated pipe or hose ruptures or overflows
from deep pit manure storage structures or from the confinement houses themselves. The
inspector should consider how the design, operation, and maintenance of such containment
systems could contribute to a discharge as the result of accumulated wastes and precipitation.
For other design, construction, operation, and maintenance factors specific to swine
operations, see the table titled "Summary of Sector-Specific Considerations," below, and
Appendix AD: "Overview of the Animal Industry," for information on typical production
methods and manure management practices.
Poultry Sector
The definition of a CAFO explicitly includes four different types of poultry operations: chickens
(other than laying hens), laying hens, turkeys, and ducks. Most modern CAFOs that raise poultry
for meat production use predominantly "dry" manure handling systems. As a result, discharges
to waters of the United States from production areas at those poultry operations generally are
caused by rainfall coming in contact with dry manure (i.e., poultry litter) in exposed areas, poor
housekeeping around the bird houses or litter storage areas, or poor mortality management
practices. Egg production facilities typically handle larger volumes of water as a result of egg
washing. Some facilities also use bird cooling spray systems and the condensate can co-mingle
with manure, litter, and process wastewater. Therefore, in addition to potential discharges
from litter handling practices and mortality management, laying hen CAFOs also have the
potential to discharge to waters of the United States as the result of overflows from process
Chapter 15 - Page 408
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
wastewater storage and handling structures. Moreover, poultry operations frequently have
smaller "footprints," in comparison to some other livestock sectors, which may lead to large
amounts of litter being generated relative to the availability of land for manure spreading.
Some poultry facilities may send manure off-site by truck to an outside party for spreading or
composting; these manure transfer areas should be evaluated (for example, are there storm
drains in these areas?). Therefore, relevant factors to consider in assessing the likelihood of a
poultry operation discharging include the following:
• Whether the operation has
sufficient storage capacity to
accommodate litter removed
from houses between flocks and
during whole-house cleanouts.
• Whether management of
cleanouts, stockpiles, and litter
storage sheds is done in such a
way that contaminated runoff
will not reach waters of the
United States.
• For operations with liquid
manure handling systems,
whether the operation has
adequate storage capacity for all
egg wash water and cooling spray condensate generated, considering the facility's
maximum egg production, wastewater handling capabilities, and expected dewatering
frequency.
• Whether the operation has adequate available acreage for land application to use the
nutrients generated at the facility or other arrangements in place (such as third-party
haulers).
For CAFO operations with ventilated confinement houses inspectors should consider a number
of relevant factors, such as the way water is drained from the site and proximity to waters of
the United States, when assessing whether they discharge pollutants to waters of the United
States. Some poultry facilities are designed to channel precipitation runoff from the houses
away from the confinement area in a manner that may result in discharges to waters of the
United States (see Photo 17-7). Although such discharges may be allowed for permitted CAFOs
subject to conditions specified in the permit, for unpermitted CAFOs, these discharges would
violate the CWA. For other design, construction, operation, and maintenance factors specific to
poultry operations, see the table titled "Summary of Sector-Specific Considerations," below and
Appendix AD, "Overview of the Animal Industry" for information on typical production methods
and manure management practices.
Photo 17-7. A poultry operation designed to have precipitation
drain away from houses would discharge if contaminated runoff
enters a water of the United States. (Source: EPA Region 3)
Chapter 15 - Page 409
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Summary of Sector-Specific Considerations
When evaluating sources of pollutant discharges and pathways for pollutants to reach waters of the United
States, EPA recommends considering the following site-specific factors:
ALL ANIMAL SECTORS
• Facility location, such as whether in a floodplain, proximity to waters of the United States, and if the CAFO
is upslope from waters of the United States.
• Local climatic conditions, including whether precipitation exceeds evaporation.
• Discharge history.
• Volume of manure, litter, or process wastewater generated.
• Management of manure, litter, and process wastewater.
• Management of storage, treatment, and disposal of mortalities.
• Amount of acreage to land-apply manure, litter, or process wastewater in accordance with appropriate
practices or other means of managing nutrients that prevent discharges, such as off-site transfer to other
entities.
• Type and collective effect of conservation practices (e.g., setbacks and buffers employed near surface
waters, ditches, and other conduits to surface waters to control the runoff of pollutants from land
application areas).
• Resources and protocols for proper operation and maintenance of land application equipment
(e.g., inspecting hoses and overseeing automatic shutoff valves).
• Management of feed and silage, including management/capture of silage leachate and runoff from feed
and silage storage areas.
DAIRY SECTOR
• Whether animals are housed under roofs at all times, and if not, management of manure and wastewater
generated in loafing areas and other outdoor areas with animal access.
• The capacity for manure and wastewater storage, including consideration of siting and management of
stockpiles to avoid discharges to waters of the United States and capacity of solid settling basins to hold
direct precipitation.
• Management of the calving area.
• Management of milk bottle wash water.
• Management of cooling water and footbath water.
• Storage or disposal of waste from milking parlors and milk tank cleaning.
• Management of bedding material.
• Management of manure composting areas.
• Cattle access to surface water.
BEEF CATTLE SECTOR
• The capacity for manure and wastewater storage, including consideration of siting and management of
stockpiles to avoid discharges to waters of the United States and capacity of solid settling basins to hold
direct precipitation.
• The capacity, siting, and operation and maintenance practices for a vegetated treatment system, where
applicable.
• Management of manure composting areas.
• Cattle access to surface water.
SWINE SECTOR
• Management of pollutants from confinement houses, including conveyances designed to drain runoff from
confinement areas.
Chapter 15 - Page 410
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Summary of Sector-Specific Considerations
• How manure and wastewater is collected and stored, such as in a deep pit under the confinement house or
by a containment structure like a lagoon.
• Identification of pollutant sources, such as storage facilities, and consideration of whether pollutants from
those sources contact precipitation or other water to generate process wastewater.
POULTRY SECTOR
• Identification of sources of pollutants, such as storage facilities, litter handling activities (e.g., cake-outs,
crust-outs, whole house clean-outs), poultry handling, and confinement house ventilation systems, and
consideration of whether pollutants from those sources contact precipitation or other water to generate
process wastewater.
• For layer facilities, management of egg production and egg wash water.
• Management of pollutants generated by confinement areas, including pollutants expelled from the
ventilation system and conveyances designed to drain runoff from those areas.
D. THE CAFO INSPECTION-^RECORDS REVIEW AND THE NMP
Maintaining complete, current and accurate records is important for permitted CAFOs to show
compliance with recordkeeping requirements and for unpermitted large CAFOs that land apply
manure to quality for the stormwater exemption. Inspectors should review relevant records for
both permitted CAFOs and unpermitted large CAFOs. Records may be maintained on-site at the
CAFO, or may be located off-site at a nearby location.
This section explains what types of records CAFOs must maintain relating to the production
area and land application, some key compliance elements that can be reviewed quickly and
alerts to possible compliance issues. For more information on crops production, nutrient
management and soils, refer to Appendix AE, "Nutrient Management/Soil Science" and
Appendix AK, "Growth Stages of Field Crops."
The approach described in this section does not include a complete, in-depth analysis of NMP
implementation. If the CAFO inspector intends to conduct such an analysis, refer to Appendix
AO, "Detailed Review of Nutrient Management Plan Implementation," and Chapter 5 of EPA's
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (2012a).
UNPERMITTED LARGE CAFOS
Production Area
There are no specific recordkeeping requirements for unpermitted large CAFOs related to the
production area. However, the CAFO may want to maintain records to establish and document
that there have been no discharges from the production area. Section C describes what the
inspector should examine to identify evidence of discharges.
Land Application Areas
As CAFOs are only required to have an NPDES permit if they are discharging to waters of the
United States, non-discharging CAFOs may choose not to apply for a permit. However,
precipitation-related discharges of manure, litter or process wastewater from land areas
under the control of a CAFO, such as crop fields, are subject to NPDES permitting unless the
Chapter 15 - Page 411
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CAFOs (including unpermitted CAFOs) maintain records documenting that they have land
applied in accordance with appropriate nutrient management practices. If an unpermitted
CAFO does not maintain that documentation, discharges from its land application area do not
qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption from NPDES requirements. Unpermitted
large CAFOs must have records indicating that they are implementing 40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(vi)-
(ix) on their land application sites to ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of land applied
nutrients. These practices ensure that precipitation-related discharges from the land
application areas qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption.
Table 15-8 below, shows the types of records unpermitted large CAFOs must keep to meet the
requirements of measures vi through viii dealing with land application (ix is the requirement to
keep records for vi through viii).
Table 15-8. Minimum Measures and Associated Records
Applying to Unpermitted Large CAFOs
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
S Identify site-specific
conservation
practices to be
implemented,
including buffers or
equivalent practices,
to control runoff of
pollutants to waters
of the United States
(40 CFR
122.42(e) (l)(vi)).
~ NMPorCNMP.
S Engineering drawings or as built
drawings showing the location and
dimension of berms, buffers,
setbacks, and other conservation
practices between land application
fields or production areas and
WOUS.
S Narrative descriptions of
conservation practices implemented
to control pollutant runoff, such as
NRCS conservation practice
standards.
S The CAFO does not have
documentation of buffers,
setbacks, or other conservation
practices to minimize nutrient
runoff to nearby WOUS.
S Conservation practices are
identified but do not include
operation and maintenance
protocols to ensure long-term
effectiveness to control pollutant
runoff.
S Identify protocols for
appropriate testing of
manure, litter,
process wastewater,
and soil (40 CFR
122.42(e) (l)(vii)).
~ NMP orCNMP.
V A facility sampling plan that
identifies sampling locations,
sampling frequency, analytical
methods, and laboratories for
manure, litter, process wastewater,
and soil analysis.
S Laboratory reports that identify
testing procedures and results for
manure, litter, process wastewater,
and soil.
S The CAFO land applies manure or
wastewater without sampling the
nutrient content of manure and
soil.
S Soil and manure analyses are not
current.
S Manure and process wastewater
analysis are not representative of
all sources that are land applied.
V Soil analyses are not available for
all fields used for land application.
V Soil or manure analytical results
are not consistent with those used
to calculate land application rates.
•S Establish protocols to
land apply manure,
litter or process
wastewater to ensure
appropriate
agricultural utilization
of the nutrients in the
S Site map showing land application
fields.
~ NMPorCNMP.
S Manure spreading agreements.
S No documentation of manure
application rates, protocols, or
schedules.
S The CAFO land applies manure
and/or wastewater without
Chapter 15 - Page 412
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-8. Minimum Measures and Associated Records
Applying to Unpermitted Large CAFOs
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
manure, litter or
process wastewater
(40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(viii)).
S Manure application rate calculations
in accordance with the
methodology in the NMP.
V Land application records.
S Application equipment inspection
logs.
agronomic rate calculations
supporting the application.
S Manure application at rates higher
than the rates calculated in
accordance with the NMP.
V Manure is applied at a constant
rate across all fields and crop
types.
S Land application records are
incomplete (e.g., do not specify
manure source, amount, dates,
application method).
S Actual amount of nutrients
applied is calculated at the end of
the season rather than tracked for
each application event.
S Manure is applied to fields that
are not identified in the NMP.
S Manure is imported to, or
exported from, the CAFO for land
application, and this is not
documented in the NMP, (or the
amounts not noted).
Permitted CAFOs
The inspector can visually observe some aspects of the permitted CAFO's implementation of its
NMP during the facility tour, as described in Section C, however, the inspector may also need to
review calculations, application records, laboratory test results, and other quantitative data
after the inspection. To avoid a lengthy post-inspection review, if possible inspectors should
familiarize themselves with the CAFO's NMP in advance of the inspection. If the inspection is
announced the inspector may want to request a copy from the operator. If the NMP is not
available for review prior to visiting the facility, the regulations require that a copy of the site-
specific NMP be maintained and available on-site for review.
Generally, these documents do not contain trade secrets but the inspector should reaffirm the
CAFO's right to identify documents as confidential business information. Depending on the
CAFO staffing level, the inspector may be able to flag particular documents with sticky notes to
be copied during the facility tour. The inspector should make copies of any documents that
cannot be thoroughly evaluated during the site inspection for later evaluation. The inspector
should create a list of documents and materials obtained during the inspection. The inspector
should sign and date a copy and give the copy to the CAFO site representative. The inspector
can also attach copied documents to the inspection report as reference material. It is highly
recommended, regardless of the time allotted to the records review portion of the inspection,
that the inspector asks the CAFO representative for copies of the following documents for
Chapter 15 - Page 413
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
detailed review after the on-site inspection. This documentation will aid the inspector in
evaluating the CAFO's NMP compliance:
• Phosphorus/Nitrogen risk assessment documentation/calculations
• Soil test results
• Manure/wastewater test results
• Nutrient application rate calculations
• Nutrient application records (organic and
commercial)
• Dewatering logs
• Manure transfer records
• Others (specific to NMP terms)
- Land application dates
- Precipitation records
- Timing limitations
- Soil test P result
- P Index calculations
- Description and location of buffers
On occasion, the CAFO may not have a
photocopier, fax machine, or printer that makes useable copies. The inspector can consider
taking photographs of the documents; some smartphones have applications for document
scanning. Photos should be taken using EPA or state equipment, not personal cell phones.
However, the inspector should identify the specific documents they are photographing to the
CAFO representative to allow them to claim confidentiality if applicable. Finally, the inspector
should leave the CAFO's documents in an organized manner, preferably in the same order
provided to the inspector.
RECORDS FOR PERMITTED LARGE CAFOS
Pursuant to the 2008 CAFO Final Rule, all permits issued after December 22, 2008 must require
a CAFO to submit its NMP to the permitting authority with its application for permit coverage.
This applies to both individual permits and general permits. Since NPDES permits are issued for
5-year permit terms, most CAFO permits should currently reflect the 2008 CAFO rule revisions.
In fact, there still exist some permits issued prior to 2008 that have been administratively
continued. Pursuant to those 2008 regulation revisions, by the time the CAFO inspector sees
the NMP, the permit writer probably will have reviewed the plan to ensure it is consistent with
the state technical standards for nutrient management and to identify site-specific terms of the
NMP to be incorporated into the permit. For permitted CAFOs, the inspector's job focuses on
verifying that the NMP is being updated, implemented, and documented as required. The
specific records that a particular CAFO will maintain to document NMP implementation should
be identified in the NMP or in the permit, or both.
Substantial Changes to NMP that Require
Permit Modification
• Addition of new land application areas
not previously included in NMP
• Changes to maximum field-specific annual
rates of application or to maximum
amounts of N and P derived from all
sources for each crop
• Addition of any crop not previously
included in NMP
• Changes that increase the risk of N and P
transport to Waters of the U.S.
Chapter 15 - Page 414
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Permitted CAFOs are required to submit NMP revisions to the permitting authority. The first
step in NMP evaluation is to check the NMP found on-site at the CAFO against the most recent
version submitted to the permitting authority. Differences could indicate that NMP revisions
are not being submitted as required.
If the on-site NMP has been revised from the version that was submitted to the permitting
authority, the inspector should ascertain the nature of the non-reported NMP revisions. Certain
types of revisions trigger a permit modification. For those revisions, the inspector should notify
the permit writer. In any case, the most recent version of the NMP should be included in the
permit file. If the inspector did not obtain a copy of the entire NMP, it should be requested
from the operator.
Records and documentation associated with the NMP will be referenced throughout the entire
inspection. The CAFO's NMP should include documentation and records showing
implementation of the nine minimum measures, in addition to any applicable records and
practices required by the ELG.
Production Area
Table 15-9 provides examples of the types of records that a CAFO might keep to document
implementation of the first six required NMP minimum measures that deal with the production
area. Table 15-9 also describes potential compliance alerts that may suggest non-compliance
with those minimum measures. Please keep in mind that these are example records and
compliance alerts and are not complete lists of all possible records and potential compliance
problems for each measure.
The recordkeeping requirements for the nine minimum measures apply to all permitted CAFOs.
Some CAFOs also must maintain additional records associated with the production and land
application areas: Subpart C CAFOs (dairy and beef cattle other than veal calves) and Subpart D
CAFOs (swine, poultry and veal calves) (40 CFR 122.42(e)(2)(B)). As described in Section A, these
additional requirements are implemented through the documentation and maintenance of
records of the minimum NMP measures. These records must be maintained on-site for a period
of five years from the date they are created. The additional production area records for Subpart
C and D CAFOs are also included in Table 15-9 below.
If time constraints prevent the inspector from conducting a detailed records analysis of the
CAFO's implementation of its NMP, there are some aspects that can often be quickly verified. A
complete list of possible documents and compliance alerts is included in Table 15-9 below. If
the inspector intends to do an in-depth analysis of NMP implementation, refer to Appendix AO,
"Detailed Review of Nutrient Management Plan Implementation," and Chapter 5 of EPA's
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a).
Chapter 15 - Page 415
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-9. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP
Minimum Measures i-v
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
Ensure adequate storage
of manure, litter, and
process wastewater,
including procedures to
ensure proper operation
and maintenance of the
storage facilities (40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(i)).
~ NMP or CNMP.
S Engineering calculations.
S Engineering drawings, including
as built drawings.
S Construction certifications.
S Invoices from manure or
wastewater haulers.
S Wastewater pumping logs.
S No records of dewatering storage
structures or protocols to pump down
storage structures after a significant
precipitation event or before an
extended wet weather period (i.e.,
winter or rainy season).
S No drawings, calculations, or other
evidence that storage structures were
designed and constructed to contain
wastewater and stormwater runoff
over a design storage period (e.g., 6
months' storage capacity), including
normal precipitation; the 25-year, 24-
hour storm event; and accumulated
solids.
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Records
documenting required
visual inspections
S Weekly records identifying the
impoundments, storage
structures, diversion structures,
channels, etc. inspected.
S Records identifying the water
lines that were inspected daily
(may be documented weekly).
S Description of any problems
identified.
S Records do not identify the specific
structures, water lines, etc. that are
inspected.
S Inspections are not documented at
least weekly.
V Operation and maintenance issues
are not documented (e.g., problems
identified during site tour are not
reflected in records).
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Weekly records of
the depth of manure and
wastewater in liquid
impoundments
S Weekly depth records for every
impoundment required to have a
depth marker, including:
S Name of impoundment.
S Units (inches, feet, etc.).
S Pumping level (level needed to
maintain storage for design
storm event (e.g., 25-year, 24-
hour storm).
S Wastewater levels are not recorded
weekly for all impoundments.
S Records show wastewater levels
routinely above pumping level (i.e.,
storage capacity for design storm
event not maintained).
S Records indicated impoundments are
not dewatered in a timely manner
after large storm events.
S Operator is not aware of
impoundment pumping levels.
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Records
documenting actions
taken to correct
deficiencies identified
during visual inspections
S Description and date of
corrective actions.
S For corrective actions not
completed within 30 days,
explanation of the factors
preventing immediate
correction.
S Records do not document corrective
actions.
S Corrective actions are not timely.
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Records
documenting the current
design of any manure or
litter storage structures,
including volume for
solids accumulation,
~ NMP or CNMP.
S Engineering calculations,
including estimates for each
component of the required
storage volume.
S Design documentation does not
include both 1) operating volume
(e.g., wastewater produced from
facility operations and runoff from
"normal" precipitation); and 2)
emergency storage volume (e.g.,
Chapter 15 - Page 416
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-9. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP
Minimum Measures i-v
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
design treatment volume,
total design volume, and
approximate number of
days of storage capacity
S Engineering drawings, including
as built drawings.
S Construction certifications.
runoff and precipitation from 25-year,
24-hour storm).
S Design documentation for new source
swine, poultry, or veal calf CAFOs do
not identify or account for the design
storm to ensure zero discharge.
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Records of the
date, time and estimated
volume of any overflow
S Records of overflows (not limited
to discharges).
S Description of the cause of the
overflow and corrective actions.
S For overflows resulting in a
discharge, records of all required
sampling and notification.
S * It is recommended that the
inspector obtain copies of
records showing overflows from
the production area and any
corrective actions.
S Records of discharges that were not
sampled or reported.
S Frequent overflows.
S No records of corrective actions to
prevent future overflows.
Ensure proper
management of
mortalities (i.e., dead
animals) to ensure that
they are not disposed of
in a liquid manure,
stormwater, or process
wastewater storage or
treatment system that is
not specifically designed
to treat animal mortalities
(40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(ii)).
S Description of mortality disposal
practices, including compost,
incineration, or burial locations.
S Periodic certification that
documented procedures are
followed.
S Mortality logs.
S Invoices from mortality haulers
and Tenderers.
S No written description of mortality
disposal procedures.
S No records that written procedures
are followed.
V Facility representative unable to
confirm that runoff from mortality
disposal area is contained.
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Records of
mortality management
S Description of mortality
management practices, including
storage, handling, and disposal
locations and containment of
runoff from those locations.
S Periodic certifications that
documented procedures are
followed.
S Facility representative unable to
confirm that runoff from on-site
mortality handling, storage, or
disposal areas is contained.
Ensure that clean water is
diverted, as appropriate,
from the production area
(40 CFR 122.42(e)(l)(iii)).
S Description of practices and
structures to divert clean water
from the production area.
S Topographic maps showing the
production area to be at a higher
elevation than the surrounding
land (water drains away rather
than toward the production
area).
S Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps
S The CAFO is unable to produce
documentation that roof gutters and
downspouts, engineered berms,
and/or topography divert clean water
around the production area AND
wastewater storage structure
calculations do not include
stormwater runoff from roofs and
areas outside the production area.
S The production area is constructed
inside a delineated FEMA floodplain
Chapter 15 - Page 417
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-9. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP
Minimum Measures i-v
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
showing that the production area
is outside of a delineated
floodplain.
S Engineering plans for
constructing adequately sized
berms around the production
area.
S Engineering drawings or NRCS
conservation practice
agreements to install roof gutters
with downspouts draining away
from the production area.
and facility records do not
demonstrate that the production
areas are protected from flood
inundation and washout.
Prevent direct contact of
confined animals with
WOUS (40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(iv)).
S Topographic maps that show
WOUS do flow through the
production area.
S Descriptions of practices
implemented to prevent direct
contact.
S Engineering drawings of bridges,
culverts, or other structures that
allow livestock to cross WOUS
with coming into direct contact.
S Topographic maps show surface
waters flowing through the
production area AND the CAFO
representatives are unable to discuss
or produce documentation of
practices to prevent direct contact of
confined animals with WOUS.
Ensure that chemicals and
other contaminants
handled on-site are not
disposed of in any
manure, litter, process
wastewater, or
stormwater storage or
treatment system unless
specifically designed to
treat such chemicals and
other contaminants (40
CFR 122.42(e)(l)(v)).
S Descriptions of chemical storage
areas and handling and disposal
practices demonstrating that
chemicals and other
contaminants are not improperly
disposed.
S Logs or invoices from chemical
recycling and disposal
companies.
S No documentation of chemical
disposal practices.
S Facility might need a need a Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) plan
depending on quantities.
S Facility should have a Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) for all stored
chemicals.
Land Application Areas
Fields Available for Land Application
The NMP will identify each field where land application is planned. The inspector should
compare the land application records with the fields identified in the NMP to ensure manure,
litter, or process wastewater were not applied to fields that are not covered by the plan. Use of
a land application site that is not identified in the NMP constitutes non-compliance with a
permit term. Also, addition of a land application site not covered by an approved NMP
constitutes a substantial change to the NMP that requires a permit modification with
associated permitting authority review and public notice.
Chapter 15 - Page 418
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Timing Limitations for Land Application
As described in Chapter 6.5.1 of EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a),
this term refers to limitations described in the technical standards for when manure
applications should be prohibited or delayed. The inspector should check land application
records to see if the applicable timing limitations are being followed. In some cases, this will be
a straightforward evaluation (e.g., prohibition on land application during specific months).
Often, however, evaluating compliance will require the inspector and case officer to use
professional judgment and diverse resources (e.g., prohibition on land application on
"saturated soils"). For additional information and examples, refer to Appendix AO, "Detailed
Review of Nutrient Management Plan Implementation."
To determine whether manure or wastewater was applied during rainfall events the inspector
can compare land application dates with local precipitation records. CAFOs often maintain daily
precipitation logs. Alternatively, Internet resources such as The Weather Underground
(www.weatherunderground.com) and Utah
Climate Center
(http://climate.usurf.usu.edu/products/data.php)
can be used to determine whether a rainfall
event occurred, at least at a nearby weather
station, on a specific date. Unless the data
document the time of application and
precipitation, it might not be possible to
positively determine whether the two events
were concurrent, but the inspector and case
officer can use information such as the
magnitude of the rainfall, whether rainfall
occurred on the previous and/or subsequent
days, the amount of manure or wastewater
applied, and other circumstantial data to assess
the likelihood that manure or wastewater was
applied during a rainfall event.
Evaluating whether wastewater was applied on
frozen or saturated ground is more complex.
Many variables such as season, latitude, altitude,
proximity of lakes and rivers, and local landscape, can affect when soils freeze and thaw. To
predict soil saturation, the inspector and case officer would need information on soil types
including antecedent soil moisture, hydraulic conductivity, infiltration rate, and precipitation
and irrigation history. Here again, the evaluation is time-consuming and the absence of direct
observation may pose challenges to determining non-compliance. If the land application
records for a facility suggest the CAFO operator is applying wastewater to frozen or snow-
covered ground, it may be more effective for an inspector to visit CAFOs under those conditions
to observe whether land application is occurring.
Document Review Tip:
Spot Check Records for a Single Field
S Did the CAFO apply manure to the correct
field identified in the NMP?
S Was the crop planned for the field actually
the crop that was planted?
S Were the form and source of the manure
applied to the field the same as those
identified in the NMP (e.g., the plan called for
solid manure from the settling basin to be
applied)?
S Did the CAFO follow timing restrictions when
applying the manure (e.g., no application
between December and March)?
S Did the CAFO use the method of application
identified in the NMP (e.g., injection)?
It is usually easiest and least expensive for a CAFO
to apply manure to the field nearest the manure
storage structures. The inspector should consider
checking records for that field.
Chapter 15 - Page 419
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Planned Crop or Other Use
The rate calculations in the NMP are based on the
crop or crop rotation planned for each field. The
inspector should evaluate land application records
to ensure the crops grown in the field are the
same as the crops that were planned for that field
during that year. The only exception would be for
the use of alternative crops included in the NMP.
Form and Source of Manure that Is Land Applied
The inspector should compare the form and
source of manure to be applied to each field and
crop, identified in permit terms, with the land
application records to see if the planned form(s)
and source(s) were used.
Timing and Method of Land Application
The inspector should compare methods and timing of manure application to the terms of the
permit. The specificity of the terms will be guided by the state technical standards for nutrient
management and, largely, the nitrogen availability factors that are required. For example, many
states provide a single availability factor or mineralization rate for seasonal (i.e., fall or spring)
application. In those states, the permit term might simply specify fall or spring application. In
some cases, a permit term might be as specific as "within two weeks before planting." While
the CAFO's NMP may include specific dates for planned applications (most nutrient
management planning programs require specific dates) the inspector must make sure the
actual nutrient applications identified in the facility records are consistent with the permit
term.
The permit term for method of application will specify at least whether the surface or
subsurface application is planned and may be as specific as identifying the type of equipment
that will be used. The term should also reflect whether the manure is to be incorporated within
a certain timeframe. The CAFO inspector should evaluate land application records to see if the
actual method of application, including time to incorporation, is consistent with the planned
method reflected in the permit term.
Table 15-10 provides examples of the types of records that a CAFO might keep to document
implementation of minimum measures vi through viii dealing with land application. The ninth
minimum measure is the requirement to keep records documenting the implementation and
management of measures one through eight. Some records may be available electronically, for
example, it may be possible to obtain a summary table from the CAFO's NMP planner that
includes data for hundreds of fields. Table 15-10 also describes potential compliance alerts that
may suggest non-compliance with those minimum measures. Please keep in mind that these
are example records and compliance alerts and are not complete lists of all possible records
and potential compliance problems for each measure. Inspectors should be well-versed in the
common types of nutrient management practices and protocols used in their region to facilitate
Document Review Tip
Keep a notebook with book values for annual
manure production by animal type, typical
crop nutrient uptake rates, and other
information to informally verify numbers used
in CAFO nutrient management plans. The
CAFO's input values may be different but
would not be expected to differ significantly
from land grant university book values. Find
information on manure generation and
management from the land grant universities
at
http://articles.extension.org/animal_manure_
management or contact your state university
extension office.
Chapter 15 - Page 420
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
the evaluation of the adequacy of NMP implementation as applied to the unique circumstances
at each individual CAFO.
In addition to the recordkeeping requirements for the nine minimum measures, which apply to
all permitted CAFOs, Large beef, dairy, veal calf, swine and poultry CAFOs also must maintain
additional records associated with the production and land application areas. As described in
Section A, these additional requirements are implemented through the documentation and
maintenance of records of the minimum NMP measures. These records must be maintained on-
site for a period of five years from the date they are created. The additional land application
records for Subpart C and D CAFOs are also included in Table 15-10 below.
Table 15-10. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP
Minimum Measures vi-viii
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
1. Identify site-specific
conservation practices
to be implemented,
including buffers or
equivalent practices,
to control runoff of
pollutants to waters of
the United States (40
CFR 122.42(e)(l)(vi)).
V NMP or CNMP.
S Engineering drawings or as built
drawings showing the location
and dimension of berms,
buffers, setbacks, and other
conservation practices between
land application fields or
production areas and WOUS.
S Narrative descriptions of
conservation practices
implemented to control
pollutant runoff, such as NRCS
conservation practice
standards.
S Subpart C and D CAFOs cannot
document a 100-foot setback from any
down-gradient surface waters, open
tile intake structures, sinkholes,
agricultural well heads, or other
conduits to surface waters where
manure, litter, and process wastewater
are not applied or a 35-foot vegetated
buffer where manure, litter or process
wastewater is not applied.
S The CAFO does not have
documentation of buffers, setbacks, or
other conservation practices to
minimize nutrient runoff to nearby
WOUS.
S Conservation practices are identified
but do not include operation and
maintenance protocols to ensure long-
term effectiveness to control pollutant
runoff.
2. Identify protocols for
appropriate testing of
manure, litter, process
wastewater, and soil
(40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(vii)).
V NMP or CNMP.
S A facility sampling plan that
identifies sampling locations,
sampling frequency, analytical
methods, and laboratories for
manure, litter, process
wastewater, and soil analysis.
S Laboratory reports that identify
testing procedures and results
for manure, litter, process
wastewater, and soil. Note for
large facilities this information
may be available electronically
from the CAFO's NMP planner.
S The CAFO land applies manure or
wastewater without sampling the
nutrient content of manure and soil.
S Soil and manure analyses are not
current (according to the required
testing frequency).
S Manure and process wastewater
analysis are not representative of all
sources that are land applied.
S Soil analyses are not available for all
fields used for land application.
S Soil or manure analytical results are not
consistent with those used to calculate
land application rates.
Chapter 15 - Page 421
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-10. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP
Minimum Measures vi-viii
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Manure and
Soil Testing Protocols
S Laboratory reports that indicate
manure was analyzed a
minimum of once annually for
nitrogen and phosphorus.
S Laboratory reports that indicate
soil was analyzed a minimum of
once every five years for
phosphorus.
S Rate calculations that include
results from laboratory.
S Manure not analyzed annually.
S Manure not analyzed for both nitrogen
and phosphorus.
S Soil not analyzed once every five years
for phosphorus.
S Results not used in determining
application rates for manure, litter, and
process wastewater.
3. Establish protocols to
land apply manure,
litter or process
wastewater in
accordance with site-
specific NMP that
ensure appropriate
agricultural utilization
of the nutrients in the
manure, litter or
process wastewater
(40 CFR
122.42(e)(l)(viii)).
S Site map showing land
application fields.
~ NMP or CNMP.
S Manure spreading agreements.
S Manure application rate
calculations in accordance with
the methodology in the NMP.
S Land application records.
S Application equipment
inspection logs.
S No documentation of manure
application rates, protocols, or
schedules.
S The CAFO land applies manure and/or
wastewater AND commercial fertilizer
without agronomic rate calculations
supporting the application of both
types.
S Manure application at rates higher than
the rates calculated in accordance with
the NMP methodology.
S Nutrient credits from irrigation water,
previous legume crops, and
mineralization from previous manure
applications are not included in manure
application rate calculations.
S Manure is applied at a constant rate
across all fields and crop types.
¦S Land application records are
incomplete (e.g., do not specify manure
source, amount, dates, application
method).
¦S Actual amount of nutrients applied is
calculated at the end of the season
rather than tracked for each
application event.
¦S Manure is applied to fields that are not
identified in the NMP.
¦S Manure is imported to, or exported
from, the CAFO for land application,
and this is not documented in the NMP,
(or the amounts not noted).
Chapter 15 - Page 422
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 15-10. Example Records and Potential Compliance Alerts Associated with NMP
Minimum Measures vi-viii
Minimum Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Land application
equipment inspections for
leaks
S Application equipment
inspection logs.
¦S Application equipment inspection logs
do not include a section to record leak
inspection information.
S Facility representative unable to
confirm that land application
equipment is periodically inspected for
leaks.
For Subpart C and D
CAFOs: Specific land
application area
recordkeeping
requirements
S Expected crop yields.
S Date(s) manure, litter, or
process wastewater is applied
to each field.
S Recorded weather conditions
starting 24 hours before land
application and ending 24
hours after land application is
finished.
S Test methods used to sample
and analyze manure, litter,
process wastewater and soil.
S Results from manure, litter,
process wastewater, and soil
sampling.
S Explanation of the basis for
determining manure
application rates, as provided in
the technical standards
established by the Director.
S Calculations showing the total
nitrogen and phosphorus to be
applied to each field, including
sources other than manure,
litter, or process wastewater.
S Total amount of nitrogen and
phosphorus applied to each
field, including documentation
of calculations for the total
amount applied.
S Method used to apply the
manure, litter, or process
wastewater.
S Date(s) and results of manure
application equipment
inspection.
S CAFO does not have records for land
application fields and activities.
In addition to the above records, permitted large CAFOs, regardless of animal sector, must keep
records of all manure transfers. Prior to transferring manure, litter or process wastewater to
other persons, the CAFO must provide the recipient of the manure, litter or process wastewater
with the most current nutrient analysis. The CAFO must also retain records of the date of the
Chapter 15 - Page 423
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
transfer, the name and address of the recipient, and the approximate amount of manure, litter,
or process wastewater transferred (tons/gallons). These records must be maintained for 5 years
from the date the manure, litter, or process wastewater is transferred.
Records for Permitted Medium and Small CAFOs
Permitted medium and small CAFOs are subject to the same requirements as a Large Permitted
CAFO, with the exception of the ELG. Permitted medium and small CAFOs must maintain
records to document NMP development and implementation, but are not subject to the ELG
(40 CFR Part 122.42(e)). Any technology-based requirements and associated records will be
specified in the permit for a medium or small CAFO and may be similar to the ELG requirements
for large CAFOs.
_ closing'conference
CAFO representatives are usually anxious to hear and discuss the inspection findings before the
inspector departs. The inspector should hold a closing meeting or conference to present and
discuss preliminary inspection findings (e.g., CAFO is not recording weekly depth marker
readings, impoundments had less than 1 foot of freeboard, inspections not being done,
confined livestock not kept out of waters of the United States). The inspector does not make a
determination of an operation's CWA compliance or noncompliance status at the time of the
inspection. The inspector should characterize the post inspection closing conference feedback
as preliminary, acknowledging that the inspector may identify additional issues or concerns
while going through records and notes after the inspection and that compliance will be
determined by the case review officer with input from the inspector after a review of all
information obtained. The inspector may find it helpful to tie inspection feedback to specific
regulatory requirements.
The closing conference is also an excellent time to provide the producer with compliance
assistance information or refer the producer to sources of additional information. The inspector
is often the only contact between EPA and the regulated industries; be aware of opportunities
to promote compliance with EPA regulations. During an inspection, the inspector has first-hand
knowledge of the inspection site, as well as knowledge of any specific questions or problems
the site officials may have. Use this time to answer those questions and/or convey information
that will move the site toward improving compliance and acting in an environmentally
responsible manner. There are some limitations on the types of compliance assistance that are
appropriate. The inspector should follow the guidelines described in EPA's Final National Policy:
Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During Inspections (EPA, 2003a).
EPA has put together a series of answers to commonly asked questions to help livestock and
poultry operation owners and operators understand what to expect from EPA National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) inspections (EPA, 2014), available at
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/fact-sheet-livestock-and-poultry-operation-inspections.
Other examples of appropriate compliance assistance to a facility include:
• Providing copies of statutes, regulations, or fact sheets
Chapter 15 - Page 424
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Providing guidance manuals or technical documents
• Distributing the small business information sheet
• Providing facilities with related websites
• Mentioning that state requirements may apply
Inspectors should visit EPA's Ag Center website at https://www.epa.gov/agriculture for
compliance assistance resources that may help the CAFO facilities they inspect. Other CAFO
compliance assistance resources include:
• EPA's Compliance Assistance Centers website:
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/compliance-assistance-centers
• USDA Cooperative Extension Service's "extension" animal manure management site:
http://extension.org/animal manure management
During this meeting or conference, the inspector should also answer final questions, prepare
necessary document receipts, provide any additional information about the NPDES program,
and request the compilation of data that were not available at the time of the inspection.
Inspectors should be prepared to discuss follow-up procedures, such as how results of the
inspection will be used and what further communications the region, state, tribe, or locality
may have with the facility.
_
Post-inspection activities begin when the inspector departs the facility. This includes delivering
samples to the laboratory in accordance with the protocols outlined in the QAPP (see Appendix
AN, "Sample Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)") and any needed post-inspection
biosecurity measures. This section may be brief, but the activities covered are critical to ensure
that information and data collected during the inspection are accurately documented and
presented in the written inspection report. The written report, along with photographs and
other evidence collected during the inspection, will be used by EPA attorneys and senior
compliance and enforcement managers to make legal decisions pertaining to the facility's
compliance status and potential enforcement responses. The report might also document that
the facility was in compliance with its NPDES permit at the time of the inspection, which could
be an important factor in determining whether any future discharges are allowable, in
accordance with the permit conditions (see Appendix AP, "Inspection Report Template (R7)").
Given the importance of the inspection report the inspector is strongly encouraged to begin the
inspection report as soon as possible following the inspection. Particular activities that should
be accomplished on the day or days following the inspection include:
• Review inspection notes and document any details that were discussed during the
inspection but not recorded in the notes, particularly compliance concerns. These items
should be annotated to make clear that they were added after the inspection.
Chapter 15 - Page 425
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Document or highlight the potential compliance issues identified during the closing
conference with the facility representative.
• Identify missing information on the checklist and contact the operator for this
information.
• Download, organize and add descriptions to inspection photos, or have inspection film
developed. Follow the Digital Camera Guidance for EPA Civil Inspections and
Investigations.
• Place documents claimed as confidential business information (CBI) in a secure location
(this must occur as soon as the inspector returns to the office).
Generally, the accuracy and quality of the inspection report is highest when the report is
completed promptly.
COMMUNICATION WITH THE CAFO OPERATOR
It may be necessary to follow up with an operator after the inspection if additional information
is needed or to clarify certain information obtained during the inspection. As it can be difficult
to reach an operator who is busy, the inspector should use the closing conference to establish
the best times and approach for post-inspection communication (e.g., mobile phone, office
phone, email, or fax). Any information obtained from the operator after the inspection should
be identified in the inspection notes and report.
Post Inspection NMP Records Evaluation
The records and document review portion of the CAFO inspection should provide the inspector
with an opportunity to review required documentation. However, the inspector may not have
adequate time to review laboratory reports, rate calculations, and land application records. As
a result, the inspector may need to complete the records review back in the office. Refer to
Section B for a list of records to photocopy for post inspection evaluation. Appendix AO,
"Detailed Review of Nutrient Management Plan Implementation" provides more detail on
reviewing NMPs and land application records.
Inspection Report Generation
After the inspector has reviewed all the information obtained during the inspection and
contacted the operator, if needed for any clarifying information, an inspection report should be
prepared. The inspection report will generally include the inspection checklist, documentation
copied during the inspection, an explanation of findings, and supporting photographs. See
NPDES Inspection Manual for detailed information on preparation of an NPDES inspection
report. The inspector should follow EPA quality control/quality assurance procedures for
inspection reports.
Compliance Determination and Follow-Up Action
Senior EPA compliance personnel will review the completed inspection report and evaluate
whether the facility is in compliance and what type of follow-up action is appropriate. EPA
Chapter 15 - Page 426
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
responds to noncompliance in several different ways, depending upon the nature and
circumstances of the violation(s):
• No follow-up needed
• Letter notifying the facility of violation(s) (e.g., NOVs) or compliance assistance
• Administrative compliance order
• Administrative compliance order plus administrative penalty
• Civil judicial enforcement action (penalties and/or injunctive relief)
• Criminal enforcement investigation
Compliance decisions will be based on observations, data, and other evidence collected during
the inspection. Thus, it is the inspector's responsibility to carefully document all aspects of the
inspection process so senior compliance personnel can make an informed legal decision about
the facility's compliance status and to ensure that any required follow-up action is based on
sound, factual evidence.
Once finalized, EPA should send a copy of the report to the inspected facility. If it is not a
region's practice to send the report to the facility, there should be some communication with
the facility to transmit the results of the inspection. Note that the inspection report may be
addressed to a responsible official who is different from the facility representative who
participated in the inspection. The responsible official will typically be an individual authorized
to make management and financial decisions which govern operation of the facility (40 CFR
122.22(a)(1)).
File Maintenance
It is important once the inspection report is complete to ensure all documents associated with
the inspection, including all field notes and photographs, are properly filed in a readily
identified location that corresponds with the currently used filing system (e.g., facility name,
permit number). The inspector should mark all information claimed to be CBI and place it in a
locked filing cabinet or a safe immediately after the inspection is completed. CBI includes
information considered to be trade secrets (including chemical identity, processes, or
formulation) that could damage a company's competitive position if they became publicly
known. The facility representative is responsible for identifying CBI during the inspection; the
inspector will have discussed this during the opening conference.
As previously mentioned, the information presented in this chapter is intended to be
comprehensive and broadly applicable to the majority of EPA inspections at permitted and
unpermitted CAFOs; however, there will always be situations that require the inspector to rely
on their best professional judgment, knowledge of the regulations, and familiarity with EPA
Region-specific policies. As such, the inspector is encouraged to periodically review the NPDES
Compliance Inspection Manual and other resources referenced in this manual to remain up to
date on national and regional EPA compliance inspection policies and procedures.
Chapter 15 - Page 427
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
G. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on CAFOs.
Adams, T. (2012). "What does a cattle disease look like in a human?" Farm & Ranch Guide.
Available at: http://www.farmandranchguide.com/news/livestock/what-does-a-cattle-
disease-look-like-in-a-human/article_41f0aeac-4b80-llel-a531-0019bb2963f4.html
Pelzer, K.D. and N. Currin. (2009). Zoonotic Diseases of Cattle. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia
Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Available at:
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-460/400-460.html
Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co. (5th Cir. 1980). 620 F.2d 41, 45-46.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007). U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2009). Part
304 - Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Technical Criteria. Available at:
http://d irectives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=25686.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984). EPA Policy for the Administration of
Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/tp/pdf/indian-policy-84.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). NPDES Storm Water Program Question and
Answer Document, Volume 1. EPA 833-F-93-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Guide Manual on NPDES Regulations for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA-833-B-95-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001a). Final Guidance on the Enforcement Principles
Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/84indianpolicy.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001b). Routine Biosecurity Procedures for EPA
Personnel Visiting Farms, Ranches. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/inspection/biosecurityme
mo.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Development Document for the Final Revisions to
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. EPA-821-R-03-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003a). Final National Policy: Role of the EPA Inspector
in Providing Compliance Assistance During Inspections. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/inspectorrole.pdf
Chapter 15 - Page 428
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003b). NPDES Permit Writers' Guidance Manual and
Example Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA-833-B-04-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Managing Manure Nutrients at Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations. EPA 821-B-09-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management. EPA 833-F-12-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Regulation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Removal of Vacated
Elements in Response to 2011 Court Decision, Final Rule. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0142; FRL-9705-
6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Fact Sheet: Livestock and Poultry Operation
Inspections. EPA 305-F-14-0.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual. Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. EPA 305-X-04-001.
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA. (2d Cir. 2005). 399 F.3d 486, 510-11.
Chapter 15 - Page 429
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 16-
VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT (VGP)
A. Background and Overview 431
Background and History of the VGP 431
VGP Overview 431
B. Permits 434
Authorization under the VGP 434
Discharge Types Specifically Not Authorized By the VGP 435
Technology-Based Effluent Limits and related requirements Applicable to All Vessels 435
Effluent Limits and Related Requirements For Specific Discharge Categories 438
Vessel Class-Specific Requirements 443
Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits 445
C. Permit Inspections and Monitoring 446
Self Inspections and Monitoring 446
Permit Recordkeeping 449
Additional Recordkeeping for vessels Equipped with Ballast Tanks 451
Permit Reporting 452
Vessel Inspection Overview 454
VGP Inspection Procedures 455
D. Safety Hazards 465
Expected Hazards 465
Physical Hazards 465
Thermal Hazards 465
Chemical Hazards 465
Biological Hazards 466
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 466
E. Violations and Examples 466
Common VGP Violations and Examples of Good and Bad Practices 466
Good and Bad Practices 467
F. References 470
Tables
Table 16-1. Vessel Discharge Descriptions 461
Related Websites
Vessel General Permit webpage: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels-incidental-discharge-permitting-3.
Vessels Notice of Intent (eNOI) webpage: https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/vgpenoi/f?p=102:101.
Vessels One-Time Report webpage: https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=VGP_2008:HOME:::::.
Chapter 16 - Page 430
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE VGP
In addition to materials in this chapter, inspectors must be familiar with Chapter 1,
"Introduction," and Chapter 2, "Inspection Procedures
In December 2003, a long-standing exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation
of vessels17 from the NPDES program became the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA,
2005). On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
determined that the exclusion exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and in September 2006 issued a final order stating:
• The blanket exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel,
contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122.3(a), shall be
vacated as of September 30, 2008.
• Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D.
Cal., 2006).
EPA appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, and on July 23, 2008, the Court
upheld the decision (Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, 2008).
This meant that, effective December 19, 2008, except for those vessels exempted from National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting by Congressional legislation,
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels which were excluded from NPDES
permitting by 40 CFR 122.3(a), were subject to CWA section 301's prohibition against
discharging, unless covered under an NPDES permit. The CWA authorizes civil and criminal
enforcement for violations of that prohibition and allows for citizen suits against violators.
In response to the court decisions, the EPA issued the first Vessel General Permit (VGP) in
December 2008, which expired on December 19, 2013. On April 12, 2013, EPA issued the final
2013 NPDES VGP, which replaces the 2008 NPDES VGP at expiration and extends to
December 19, 2018.
VGP OVERVIEW
Eligibility and Limitation on Coverage
The VGP is applicable to discharges incidental to the normal operation of non-recreational, non-
military vessels into waters subject to the permit. The permit applies to all vessels operating in
a capacity as a means of transportation that have discharges incidental to their normal
operations into waters subject to the permit, with some exceptions.
17 "Vessel" means every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance being used as a means of
transportation on "Waters Subject to this Permit" (modified from CWA section 312(a)).
Chapter 16 - Page 431
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Operating in a Capacity as a Means of Transportation
Vessels that are NOT being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation as set out in 40
CFR 122.3(a) (and whose discharges are accordingly NOT applicable to the VGP) include vessels
being used as energy or mining facilities, storage facilities, seafood processing facilities, or
vessels that are secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to
the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or water of the United States for the purpose of mineral
or oil exploration or development.
Similarly, vessels in drydock and "floating" craft that are permanently moored to piers (e.g.,
"floating" casinos, hotels, restaurants, and bars) are not covered by the VGP, as they are not
operating in a capacity as a means of transportation.
With respect to vessels under construction, when the vessel is engaged in sea trials that result
in operational discharges, because testing is a critical part of vessel operation, such discharges
would be incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, and thus eligible for coverage under
the VGP; however, any discharges resulting from construction activities are not covered by the
VGP as they are incidental to vessel construction, not vessel operation.
Generally, except as provided for above, a vessel is operating in the capacity as a means of
transportation while underway (in transit), temporarily moored to a pier or other mooring
device, performing cargo loading/off-loading operations, fueling or defueling. during tug or tow
operations, or while performing maintenance outside of a drydock while temporarily moored.
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels
The discharges eligible for coverage under the VGP are those discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a vessel covered by the exclusion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to any vacatur of
that exclusion. Discharges incidental to normal operation include deck runoff from routine deck
cleaning, bilgewater from properly functioning oily water separators, and ballast water. Some
potential discharges are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. For example,
intentionally adding used motor oil to the bilge tank will result in a discharge that is not
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Furthermore, any discharge that results from a
failure to properly maintain the vessel and equipment, even if the discharge is of a type that is
otherwise covered by the permit, is not eligible for permit coverage. Discharges that are neither
covered by the VGP nor exempt from section 402 of the CWA must be covered under a
separate individual or general permit.
The list below identifies each of the 27 effluent streams eligible for coverage under the permit
(listed in the same order as Part 2.2 of the permit):
• Deck washdown and runoff and above water line hull cleaning.
• Bilgewater/oily water separator effluent.
• Ballast water.
• Anti-fouling hull coatings/hull coating leachate.
• Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).
• Boiler/economizer blowdown.
Chapter 16 - Page 432
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Cathodic protection.
• Chain locker effluent.
• Controllable pitch propeller and thruster hydraulic fluid and other oil-to-sea interfaces
including lubrication discharges from paddle wheel propulsion, stern tubes, thruster
bearings, stabilizers, rudder bearings, azimuth thrusters, propulsion pod lubrication, and
wire rope and mechanical equipment subject to immersion.
• Distillation and reverse osmosis brine.
• Elevator pit effluent.
• Firemain systems.
• Freshwater layup.
• Gas turbine washwater.
• Graywater (except that graywater from commercial vessels operating in the Great Lakes
within the meaning of CWA section 312 is excluded from the requirement to obtain a
NPDES permit (see CWA section 502(6)), and thus is not within the scope of the VGP);
• Motor gasoline and compensating discharge.
• Non-oily machinery wastewater.
• Refrigeration and air condensate discharge.
• Seawater cooling overboard discharge (including non-contact engine cooling water,
hydraulic system cooling water, refrigeration cooling water).
• Seawater piping biofouling protection.
• Boat engine wet exhaust.
• Sonar dome discharge.
• Underwater ship husbandry and hull fouling discharges.
• Welldeck discharges.
• Graywater mixed with sewage from vessels.
• Exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge.
• Fish hold effluent.
Waters Subject to the VGP
Waters subject to the VGP are "waters of the United States" as defined in 40 CFR Part 122.2
(extending to the outer reach of the 3-mile territorial sea as defined in section 502(8) of the
CWA). This includes all navigable waters of the Great Lakes subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. The permit does not apply to discharges beyond the 3-mile territorial sea.
The general permit covers vessel discharges into the waters of the United States in all states,
tribes and territories, regardless of whether a state or territory is authorized to implement
other aspects of the NPDES permit program within its jurisdiction, except as otherwise excluded
by Part 6 of the permit (Specific Requirements for Individual States or Indian Country Lands).
Chapter 16 - Page 433
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Vessel Universe Affected by the VGP
Vessels covered under the VGP include, cruise ships, ferries, barges, mobile offshore drilling
units, oil tankers or petroleum tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, container ships, other cargo
freighters, refrigerant ships, research vessels, emergency response vessels, including
firefighting and police vessels, and any other non-military, non-recreational vessel that is
greater than or equal to 79 feet in length and operating in a capacity of transportation. EPA
estimates that there are approximately 61,000 U.S. flagged vessels that may be eligible for
coverage under the permit. Additionally, EPA estimates that there are up to 8,000 additional
foreign flagged vessels that may need coverage under the permit.
With respect to commercial fishing vessels of any size as defined in Title 46 of the United States
Code (USC) section 2101, and non-recreational vessels that are less than 79 feet in length, the
coverage of the VGP is limited to ballast water discharges only. Public Law (P.L.) 110-299 (July
31, 2008) provided for a temporary two-year moratorium on NPDES permitting of discharges
incidental to normal operation of all commercial fishing vessels (except ballast water) and non-
recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. This moratorium was extended multiple times,
with the current moratorium lasting until to December 18, 2018 as of this publication. After
December 18, 2018, these vessels will be covered by the VGP, unless Congress takes further
action.
Recreational vessels as defined in CWA section 502(25) are not subject to the VGP. Recreational
vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting under CWA section 402, and are instead subject to
regulation under CWA section 312(o).
Vessels of the Armed Forces as defined in CWA section 312(a)(14) are also not subject to the
VGP.
B. PERMITS
AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE VGP
To obtain authorization to discharge under the VGP, vessel operators/owners must meet the
Part 1.2 eligibility requirements. If the vessel meets the requirements under Part 1.5.1.1, and
was authorized to discharge under the 2008 VGP, the vessel operator/owner must submit an
NOI to receive permit coverage seven days before the effective date of the VGP to continue
uninterrupted coverage.
Vessels authorized to discharge under the 2008 VGP were vessels that had submitted an NOI or
were not subject to the NOI requirement by Part 1.5.1.2 of the 2008 VGP. If the vessel was not
authorized to discharge under the 2008 VGP and meets the requirements under Part 1.5.1.1,
the vessel operator/owner must submit an NOI to receive permit coverage at least 7 days or
more than 30 days (as applicable) before discharging into waters subject to the VGP.
Owner/operators of vessels that meet the requirements under Part 1.5.1.2 are not required to
submit NOIs. Instead these owner/operators must sign and maintain a copy of the Permit
Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) form onboard at all times. Vessels in this
category are still subject to all applicable VGP requirements.
Chapter 16 - Page 434
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If the vessel is greater than or equal to 300 gross tons or the vessel has the capacity to hold or
discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2,113 gallons) of ballast water, the vessel operator/owner
must submit a signed and certified, complete and accurate NOI in accordance with the
requirements.
If the vessel is less than 300 gross tons and the vessel does not have the capacity to hold or
discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2113 gallons) of ballast water, the vessel owner/operator
does not need to submit an NOI; however, they must complete the PARI form.
DISCHARGE TYPES SPECIFICALLY NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE VGP
EPA has identified several discharge types not authorized by the VGP because, among other
things, the discharge is not within the scope of the current 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion or not
within the scope of EPA's NPDES permitting authority (see Part 1.2.3 of the permit). These
discharges include:
• Discharges not subject to former NPDES permit exclusion.
• Discharges generated from vessels when they are operated in a capacity other than as a
means of transportation.
• Sewage as defined at CWA section 502(6) and 40 CFR 122.2 (sewage is instead regulated
under CWA section 312 and 40 CFR Part 140 and 33 CFR Part 159).
• Used or spent oil.
• Garbage or trash (including discharges of bulk dry cargo residues as defined at 33 CFR
151.66(b) and agricultural cargo residues) (discharges of garbage continue to be subject
to regulation under 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart A).
• Photo-processing effluent.
• Effluent from dry cleaning operations.
• Discharges of medical waste and related materials.
• Discharges of noxious liquid substance residues.
• Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) and trichloroethylene degreasers.
• Discharges currently or previously covered by NPDES permits.
TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL VESSELS
The following effluent limits are required by the VGP, regardless of the type of vessel owned or
operated.
Material Storage
For cargoes or other onboard materials that might wash overboard or dissolve because of
contact with precipitation or surface water spray, or which may be blown overboard by air
currents, minimize the amount of time these items are exposed to such conditions. Locate
storage areas on the vessel for such items in covered areas where feasible and consistent with
Chapter 16 - Page 435
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and
storage of pollutants (see Part 2.1.5 of the permit). If water draining from storage areas
contacts oily materials, vessel owners/operators must:
• Use dry cleanup methods or absorbents to clean up the wastewater.
• Store the water for onshore disposal.
• Run the water through an oily water separator when so required by Coast Guard
regulations, or if not subject to such requirement, use other effective methods to
comply with Part 2.1.4 of the permit to prevent the discharge into waters subject to the
permit of any oils, including oily materials, in quantities which may be harmful as
defined in 40 CFR Part 110.
Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Where consistent with vessel design and construction, vessel owners/operators must locate
toxic and hazardous materials in protected areas of the vessel unless the master determines
this would interfere with essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel, or doing so would
violate any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage,
and storage of pollutants (see Part 2.1.5 of the permit). Any discharge that is made for safety
reasons must be documented as part of the requirements in Part 4.2 of the permit. This
includes ensuring that toxic and hazardous materials are in appropriate sealed containers
constructed of a suitable material, labeled, and secured. Containers must not be overfilled and
incompatible wastes should not be mixed. Exposure of containers to ocean spray or
precipitation must be minimized. Jettisoning of containers holding toxic or hazardous material
is not authorized by the VGP.
Fuel Spills/Overflows
Fuel spills or overflows must not result in a discharge of oil in quantities that may be harmful,
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110. Vessel owners/operators must conduct all fueling operations using
control measures and practices designed to minimize spills and overflows and ensure prompt
containment and cleanup if they occur. Vessel operators must not overfill fuel tanks. For vessels
with interconnected fuel tanks, fueling must be conducted in a manner that prevents overfilling
and release from the system to the environment.
Vessels with air vents from fuel tanks must use spill containment or other methods to prevent
or contain any fuel or oil spills. Large scale fuel spills or overflows are not incidental to the
normal operation of the vessel and are not authorized by the VGP.
The following requirements apply to fueling of auxiliary vessels such as lifeboats, tenders or
rescue boats deployed from "host" vessels subject to the VGP:
• While fueling, examine the surrounding water for the presence of a visible sheen. If a
visible sheen is observed as a result of fueling, it must be cleaned up immediately.
Chapter 16 - Page 436
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• It is important to know the capacity of the fuel tanks before fueling begins to prevent
unintentionally overfilling the tank.
• Prevent overfilling and do not top off fuel tanks.
• When possible, fill fuel tanks while boat is on shore or recovered from the water.
• When possible, fill portable tanks on shore or on the host vessel, not on the auxiliary
vessel.
• Use an oil absorbent material or other appropriate device while fueling the auxiliary
vessel to catch drips from the vent overflow and fuel intake.
• Regularly inspect the fuel and hydraulic systems for any damage or leaks.
Owner/operators shall ensure that all crew responsible for conducting fueling operations are
trained in methods to minimize spills caused by human error and/or the improper use of
equipment.
Discharges of Oil Including Oily Mixtures
All discharges of oil, including oily mixtures, from ships subject to Annex I of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as implemented by the CWA to Prevent
Pollution from Ships and U.S. Coast Guard regulations found in 33 CFR 151.09 (hereinafter
referred to as "MARPOL vessels") must have concentrations of oil less than 15 parts per million
(ppm) (as measured by EPA Method 1664 or other appropriate method for determination of oil
content as accepted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (e.g., ISO Method 9377)
or U.S. Coast Guard) before discharge. All MARPOL vessels must have a current International Oil
Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP) issued in accordance with 33 CFR 151.19 or 151.21. All
other discharges of oil including oily mixtures must not contain oil in quantities that may be
harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110.
Compliance with Other Statutes and Regulations
As required by 40 CFR 122.44(p), vessel owners/operators must comply with any applicable
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage
of pollutants.
Any discharge from vessels must comply with: section 311 (40 CFR Part 110) of the CWA;
regulations requiring prevention of pollution from ships (40 CFR Part 1043); the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act and implementing regulations (15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404);
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 40 CFR Part 152); and, the Oil
Pollution Control Act (OPA of 1990, 40 CFR Part 112).
General Training
All owner/operators of vessels must ensure that the master, operator, person-in-charge, and
crew members who actively take part in the management of incidental discharges or who may
affect those discharges are adequately trained in implementing the terms of the VGP. In
addition, all owner/operators of vessels must ensure appropriate vessel personnel be trained in
the procedures for responding to fuel spills and overflows, including notification of appropriate
Chapter 16 - Page 437
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
vessel personnel, emergency response agencies, and regulatory agencies. This training need not
be formal or accredited courses; however, it is the vessel owners/operators' responsibility to
ensure the staff are given the necessary information to conduct shipboard activities in
accordance with the terms of the VGP.
Vessel owners/operators must also meet all training-related recordkeeping requirements of
Part 4.2 of the VGP.
EFFLUENT LIMITS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DISCHARGE
CATEGORIES
EPA's discharge-specific permit requirements applicable to all covered vessels that discharge
them are provided in Part 2.2 of the permit by discharge. Below are examples of key permit
requirements for several discharge types covered in the permit. The inspector should refer to
the full list of permit requirements for all 27 discharge types in Part 2.2 of the permit.
Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning
Vessel owners/operators must minimize deck washdowns while in port. Vessel
owner/operators must also minimize the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage, residue, and
spill into deck washdown and runoff discharges. Deck washdowns should have minimal
presence of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated phenol compounds, and dispersants, or
surfactants.
Vessel owners/operators must maintain their topside surface and other above water line
portions of the vessel to minimize the discharge of rust (and other corrosion byproducts),
cleaning compounds, paint chips, non-skid material fragments, and other materials associated
with exterior topside surface preservation.
Measures that may be implemented by the operator/owner to minimize deck washdown or
above water line hull cleaning include:
• Using perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect the runoff for treatment.
• Using coamings and drip pans for machinery on deck to collect and properly dispose of
any oily discharge that may leak from machinery and prevent spills.
• Using minimally toxic and phosphate-free cleaners and detergents.
• Avoiding spray applications in windy conditions or avoiding over application.
Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator Effluent
All bilgewater discharges must be in compliance with the regulations in 40 CFR Parts 110
(Discharge of Oil), 116 (Designation of Hazardous Substances), and 117 (Determination of
Reportable Quantities for Hazardous Substances) and 33 CFR 151.10 (Control of Oil Discharges).
In addition:
• Vessel operators may not use dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals, or other
substances that remove the appearance of a visible sheen in their bilgewater discharges.
Chapter 16 - Page 438
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Vessel operators may not add substances that drain to the bilgewater that are not
produced in the normal operation of a vessel (except for additives used to enhance
oil/water separation during processing). Routine cleaning and maintenance activities
associated with vessel equipment and structures are considered to be normal operation
of a vessel if those practices fall within normal marine practice.
Vessels must minimize the discharge of bilgewater into waters subject to the VGP by minimizing
production, disposing near adequate treatment facilities, or discharging into waters not subject
to the VGP (i.e., more than 3 nautical miles (nm) from shore) for vessels that regularly travel
into such waters.
Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall not:
• Discharge untreated bilgewater into waters subject to the VGP.
• Discharge treated bilgewater into federally protected waters unless the discharge is
necessary to maintain the safety and stability of the ship (any discharge of bilgewater
must be documented as part of the recordkeeping requirements in Part 4.2 of the VGP).
• Discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore if technically feasible or discharge
into waters subject to the VGP unless the vessel is underway (any discharge that is made
for safety reasons must be documented as part of the requirements in Part 4.2 of the
VGP and reported in the vessel's annual report).
"New Build" vessels built after December 19, 2013 greater than 400 gross tons that may
discharge bilgewater into waters subject to the VGP must monitor (i.e., sample and analyze)
their bilgewater effluent at least once a year for oil and grease content. To demonstrate
compliance with the permit, the bilgewater sample must be analyzed for oil. Subsequent
sampling is not required if oil and grease concentrations are less than 5 ppm and the vessel
meets the following conditions:
• Vessel uses an oily water separator capable of meeting a 5-ppm oil and grease limit, or
has an alarm that prevents discharge of oil and grease at concentrations above 5 ppm.
• Oil content meter is calibrated at least annually.
• Oil content meter never reads above 5 ppm during discharges into waters subject to the
VGP.
Records of monitoring must be retained onboard for at least 3 years in the vessel's
recordkeeping documentation.
Ballast Water
All owner/operators of vessels equipped with ballast water tanks must maintain a ballast water
management plan developed specifically for the vessel and train the master, operator, person-
in-charge, and crew members who actively take part in the management of the discharge, or
who may affect the discharge, on the application of ballast water and sediment management
and treatment procedures as outlined in Parts 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2 of the permit.
Chapter 16 - Page 439
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Ballast water management practices must comply with the requirements described in Part
2.2.3.3 of the permit to avoid or minimize uptake and discharge of ballast water and associated
sediments during vessel operations. Avoid the discharge of ballast water into waters subject to
the VGP that are within or that may directly affect marine sanctuaries, marine preserves,
marine parks, shellfish beds, or coral reefs or other waters listed as federally protected waters.
Clean ballast tanks to remove sediment in mid-ocean or under controlled arrangements in port
or at drydock. As a condition of the VGP, all discharges of ballast water must also comply with
applicable U.S. Coast Guard regulations found in 33 CFR Part 151.
Additionally, "Lakers" are subject to mandatory best management practices (BMPs) described
in Part 2.2.3.4 of the VGP to reduce ballast water uptake and to implement sediment removal
policies, including ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing.
All discharges of ballast water may not contain oil, noxious liquid substances (NLSs), or
hazardous substances in a manner prohibited by U.S. laws, including section 311 of the CWA.
Vessel operators/owners can meet the numeric limits listed in Part 2.2.3.5 by using any of the
following water management measures:18
• Use a ballast water treatment system
• Send ballast water to onshore treatment facilities
• Use public water supply
• Do not discharge ballast water
If a vessel is subject to ballast water discharge limits and uses a ballast water treatment system
(BWTS), then Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP applies to the vessel and describes the monitoring
requirements, in three components. The first component, in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 generally
requires monitoring equipment performance to assure the system is fully functional. Vessels
conducting this monitoring also must adequately calibrate their equipment as required in Part
2.2.3.5.1.1.3. The second component, in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4, requires monitoring from all ballast
water systems for selected biological indicators. The third component, in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5,
requires monitoring of the ballast water discharge itself for biocides and residuals to assure
compliance with the effluent limitations established in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit, as applicable.
Records of sampling and testing results required under Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 must be retained
onboard for a period of three years in the vessel's recordkeeping documentation.
Vessels must meet the requirements in Part 2.2.3.5.1 of the permit according to the following
schedule, at which point the BWTS will become the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT):
18 EPA issued an Enforcement Response Policy on December 27, 2013 for EPA's 2013 VGP: Ballast Water
Dischargers and U.S. Coast Guard Extensions under 33 CFR Part 151. On a case-by-case basis, the U.S. Coast Guard
may grant a schedule extension request pursuant to 33 CFR Part 151.2036 to a vessel to implement the required
technology to meet the ballast water discharge standard requirements under the U.S. Coast Guard Regulations (33
CFR Part 151). EPA will consider this grant for extension when evaluating the enforcement priority for a vessel that
has not complied with the numeric ballast water discharge limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the 2013 VGP.
Chapter 16 - Page 440
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• New vessels (constructed after December 1, 2013) must comply on delivery.
• Existing vessels less than 1,500 m3 (constructed prior to December 1, 2013) must be
drydocked after January 1, 2016.
• Existing vessels 1,500-5,000 m3 (constructed prior to December 1, 2013) must be
drydocked after January 1, 2014.
• Existing vessels greater than 5,000 m3 (constructed prior to December 1, 2013) must be
drydocked after January 1, 2016.
Vessel owners not subject to the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit must meet the
exchange and flushing requirements of Part 2.2.3.6. Ballast water exchange may not be used in
lieu of meeting effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit once it becomes required to meet
these limits. Part 2.2.3.6 outlines interim requirements for the following vessels:
• Vessels on oceangoing voyages (where ballast water was taken on in areas less than 200
nm from any shore that will subsequently operate beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) and in areas more than 200 nm from any shore.
• Vessels engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages (where ballast water was taken on in
areas less than 50 nm from any shore) and travels through more than one Captain of the
Port (COTP) zone or crosses international boundaries.
• Vessels traveling between more than one COTP zone without ballast water on board (or
unpumpable residual ballast water).
• Vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages with unpumpable ballast water and
residual sediment.
These vessels are also prohibited from discharging unexchanged or untreated ballast water or
sediment in federally protected waters.
Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-Sea Interfaces Including
Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers,
Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical
Equipment Subject to Immersion
The vessel owner/operator must not discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined
in 40 CFR Part 110 from any oil-to-sea interface. If possible, maintenance activities on
controllable pitch propellers, thrusters, and other oil-to-sea interfaces should be conducted
when a vessel is in drydock.
All vessels must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant (EAL) in all oil to sea interfaces,
unless technically infeasible. For purposes of requirements related to EALs, technically
infeasible means that no EAL products are approved for use in a given application that meet
manufacturer specifications for that equipment, products which come pre-lubricated (e.g., wire
ropes) have no available alternatives manufactured with EALs, products meeting a
manufacturer's specifications are not available within any port in which the vessel calls, or
changeover and use of an EAL must wait until the vessel's next drydocking. If a vessel is unable
to use an EAL, the vessel owner/operator must document in their recordkeeping
Chapter 16 - Page 441
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
documentation consistent with Part 4.2 why the vessel operator/owner are unable to do so,
and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to EPA in the Annual
Report. Use of an EAL does not authorize the discharge of any lubricant in a quantity that may
be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110.
Graywater
All vessels that have the capacity to store graywater shall not discharge that graywater in port
or in federally protected waters. For vessels that cannot store graywater, vessel operators must
minimize the production of graywater while in port and in federally protected waters.
Vessel owners/operators must use phosphate-free and minimally toxic soaps and detergents,
as defined in Appendix A of the permit, for any purpose if graywater will be discharged into
waters subject to the VGP. Soaps and detergents must be free from toxic or bioaccumulative
compounds and not lead to extreme shifts in receiving water pH.
Graywater for new build vessels and vessels operating in the Great Lakes must meet one of the
following requirements for graywater management:
• Vessel must hold all graywater for onshore discharge to an appropriate shore-side
facility.
• The graywater discharge must not exceed 200 fecal coliform forming units per 100
milliliters and contain no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids.
The following monitoring requirements are applicable to vessels that discharge graywater into
waters subject to the VGP and meet one of the following conditions:
• The vessel is a new build vessel constructed on or after December 19, 2013, has a
maximum crew capacity greater or equal to 15, and provides overnight
accommodations to those crew.
• The vessel is subject to Part 2.2.15.1 (Certain VGP Vessels Operating in the Great Lakes)
of the VGP.
Vessel owners/operators must collect and analyze two samples per year, collected at least 14
days apart, and report the results of those samples as part of their Annual Report. Samples
must be taken for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and
total residual chlorine. Vessel owner/operators may choose to conduct monitoring for e. coli in
lieu of fecal coliform. Fecal Coliform or E. coli must only be analyzed once per year if vessels
have difficulty analyzing the results within recommended holding times.
Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for at least 3 years in the
vessel's recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 of the permit.
Underwater Ship Husbandry and Hull Fouling Discharges
Vessel owners/operators must minimize the transport of attached living organisms when
traveling into U.S. waters from outside the U.S. economic zone or between COTP zones.
Management measures to minimize the transport of attached living organisms include selecting
Chapter 16 - Page 442
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
an appropriate antifoulant management system and maintaining that system, in water
inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of hulls, and thorough hull and other niche area cleaning
when a vessel is in drydock.
Rigorous hull-cleaning activities should take place in dry dock where removal of organisms and
paint can be contained and disposed of properly. The operator/owner should take measures to
treat washwater (if generated) prior to discharging to waters subject to the VGP.
Vessel owners/operators who remove fouling organisms from hulls while the vessel is
waterborne must employ methods that minimize the discharge of fouling organisms and
antifouling hull coatings. These include:
• Use of appropriate cleaning brush or sponge rigidity to minimize removal of antifouling
coatings and biocide releases into the water column.
• Limiting use of hard brushes and surfaces to the removal of hard growth.
• When available and feasible, use of vacuum or other control technologies to minimize
the release or dispersion of antifouling hull coatings and fouling organisms into the
water column.
Vessel owners/operators must minimize the release of copper-based antifoulant paints during
vessel cleaning operations. Vessels that use copper-based anti-fouling paint must not clean the
hull in copper-impaired waters (listed at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-
ports/vessel-sewage-discharges-homepage) within the first 365 days after paint application
unless there is a significant visible indication of hull fouling. If the operator/owner cleans the
vessel before 365 days after paint application in copper-impaired waters, the operator/owner
must document why this early cleaning was necessary.
VESSEL CLASS-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
EPA's vessel class-specific permit requirements applicable to all covered vessels in those vessel
classes are provided in Part 5 of the permit by vessel class. Examples of vessel class-specific
requirements for large and medium cruise ships are presented below. The inspector should
refer to Part 5 of the VGP to get a comprehensive list of permit requirements for all vessel
classes.
Large and Medium Cruise Ships
While operating within 3 nm from shore, discharges of graywater are prohibited unless they
meet the effluent standards in Parts 5.1.1.1.2 and 5.2.1.1.219 of the VGP for large and medium
cruise ships, respectively. Parts 5.1.1.1.2 and 5.2.1.1.2 graywater treatment standards are:
- The discharge must satisfy the minimum level of effluent quality specified in 40 CFR
133.102 (secondary treatment requirements).
19 The effluent standards listed in Parts 5.1.1.1.2 and 5.2.1.1.2 of the VGP are secondary limits set for graywater
discharges.
Chapter 16 - Page 443
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- The geometric mean of the samples from the discharge during any 30-day period
may not exceed 20 fecal coliform/100 milliliters (ml) and not more than 10 percent
of the samples exceed 40 fecal coliform/100 ml.
- Concentrations of total residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 micrograms per liter
(ng/0-
Medium cruise ships are held to the same standards for graywater management as large cruise
ships, unless they are a vessel unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore and were
constructed before December 19, 2008. For medium vessels built before December 19, 2008,
onshore facilities for graywater discharges must be used if available. If such facilities are not
available and the vessel does not have the capacity to treat graywater to meet the standards in
Part 5.2.1.1.2 of the VGP, the vessel must hold the graywater unless it is underway and sailing
at a speed of at least 6 knots in a water that is not federally protected waters.
When operating in nutrient impaired waters subject to the VGP, large and medium cruise ship
vessels must not discharge any graywater unless the length of voyage in that water exceeds the
vessel's holding capacity for graywater, and must minimize the discharge of any graywater into
nutrient-impaired waters subject to the VGP, which may require minimizing the production of
graywater.
Vessel operators must demonstrate through initial and maintenance monitoring (as described
in Parts 5.1.2.2 and 5.2.2.2 of the VGP) that an effective treatment system is in place to comply
with the discharge standards for treated graywater identified in Parts 5.1.1.1.2 and 5.2.1.1.2 of
the VGP. For large cruise ships, monitoring is required if the ship will discharge graywater within
3 nm of shore. For medium cruise ships, monitoring is required if the ship will discharge within
1 nm of shore. The owner/operator must submit data to EPA showing that the graywater
standards are achieved by their treatment system.
Cruise ship owners/operators must use soaps and detergents that are phosphate-free,
minimally toxic, and biodegradable. Degreasers must be minimally toxic if they will be
discharged as part of any wastestream.
Waste from mercury-containing products, dry cleaners or dry cleaner condensate, photo
processing labs, medical sinks or floor drains, chemical storage areas, and print shops using
traditional or non-soy-based inks and chlorinated solvents must be prevented from entering the
ship's graywater, blackwater, or bilgewater systems if water from these systems will be
discharged into waters subject to the VGP.
Vessel owners/operators must not discharge any toxic materials, including products containing
acetone, benzene, or formaldehyde into salon and day spa sinks or floor drains if those sinks or
floor drains lead to any system that will be discharged into waters subject to the VGP.
Vessel owners/operators must monitor chlorine or bromine concentrations (as applicable) in
pool or spa water before every discharge event if they will discharge these streams in to waters
subject to the permit.
Chapter 16 - Page 444
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Operators must provide educational and training programs to inform crew members on the
appropriate management of ship discharges.
Permit Requirements for Individual States or Indian Country Lands
Part 6 of the VGP identifies provisions provided to EPA by states and tribes in their CWA section
401 certifications that the states and tribes deemed necessary to assure compliance with
applicable provisions of the CWA and any other appropriate requirements of state and tribal
law. Pursuant to CWA section 401(d), EPA has attached those state and tribal provisions to the
VGP.
Permit Requirements for Waters Federally Protected Wholly or in Part for Conservation Purposes
Several of the discharge-specific and vessel class-specific permit requirements prohibit or limit
various discharges in "waters federally protected in whole or in part for conservation
purposes." (Refer to Appendix G of the VGP for a complete list of federally protected waters.)
These waters include:
• Marine Sanctuaries designated under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and
implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404 or Marine
national monuments designated under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
• A unit of the National Park System, including National Preserves and National
Monuments.
• A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including Wetland Management Districts,
Waterfowl Production Areas, National Game Preserves, Wildlife Management Area, and
National Fish and Wildlife Refuges.
• National Wilderness Areas and any component designated under the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System.
• Any waterbody designated as an Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW) by a
state or tribe.
Because it is possible to limit discharges to certain times, but not to limit those discharges
indefinitely, EPA developed additional permit requirements for these waters likely to be of high
quality and consist of unique ecosystems that may include distinctive species of aquatic animals
and plants. Furthermore, as protected areas, these waters are more likely to have a greater
abundance of sensitive species of plants and animals that may have trouble surviving in areas
with greater anthropogenic impact.
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
The vessel's discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards in the receiving water body or another water body impacted by the vessel's
discharges. EPA may impose additional water quality-based limitations on a site-specific basis,
or require the operator/owner to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if information in
the NOI (if applicable), required reports, or from other sources indicates that, after meeting the
Chapter 16 - Page 445
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
water quality-based limitations in this part, the vessel's discharges are not controlled as
necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, either in the receiving water body or
another water body impacted by the vessel's discharges.
Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters
Impaired waters or "water quality limited segment[s]" are those which have been identified by
a state or EPA pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable state water
quality standards. Impaired waters may include either waters with EPA-approved or EPA-
established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and those for which EPA has not yet approved
or established a TMDL. If the vessel discharges to an impaired water without an EPA-approved
or established TMDL, the vessel operator/owner is required to comply with the requirements in
Part 2.3.1, including any additional requirements that EPA may impose pursuant to that part.
If the vessel discharges to an impaired water with an EPA-approved or established TMDL and
EPA or state TMDL authorities have informed the operator/owner that a Waste Load Allocation
(WLA) has been established that applies specifically to the vessel's discharges, to discharges
from vessels in the operator/owner's vessel class or type, or to discharges from vessels in
general, the vessel's discharge must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of
that WLA.
C. PERMIT INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING
The VGP requires vessel operators to conduct self-inspections and monitoring, comprehensive
annual vessel inspections, and drydock inspections.
SELF INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING
Routine Visual Inspections
Conduct routine visual inspections of all areas addressed in the VGP, including, but not limited
to cargo holds, boiler areas, machinery storage areas, welldecks, and other deck areas. Ensure
these areas are clear of garbage, exposed raw materials, oil, any visible pollutant or constituent
of concern that could be discharged in any wastestream, and that pollution prevention
mechanisms are in proper working order. At a minimum, the routine inspection must verify that
requirements of Part 2.1 of the VGP (Technology-Based Effluent Limits and related
requirements Applicable to All Vessels) are being met and document any instances of
noncompliance. Routine inspections should be conducted on a schedule that coincides with
other routine vessel inspections if feasible. Conduct a visual inspection of safely accessible deck
and cargo areas and all accessible areas where chemicals, oils, dry cargo, or other materials are
stored, mixed, and used —regardless of whether the areas have been used since the last
inspection—at least once per week or per voyage, whichever is more frequent. If operators
engage in multiple voyages per day, they need not conduct inspections on every voyage, but
must conduct inspections at least once per day. Furthermore, the inspection should verify
whether all monitoring, training, and inspections are logged according to permit requirements.
A ship's watch must include visual monitoring of the water around and behind the vessel for
visible sheens, dust, chemicals, abnormal discoloration or foaming, and other indicators of
Chapter 16 - Page 446
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
pollutants or constituents of concern originating from the vessel. Particular attention should be
paid to deck runoff, ballast water, and bilgewater. If vessel owners/operators identify or are
made aware that pollutants or constituents of concern are originating from their vessel, they
must initiate corrective actions in Part 3 of the VGP. Vessel owner/operators may conduct these
inspections as part of meeting their existing (or updated) international safety management
code (ISM) safety management system (SMS) plan obligations, if those inspections meet the
minimum requirements discussed above.
In situations where multiple voyages occur within a one-week period, the operator/owner may
choose to conduct a limited visual inspection addressing only those areas that may have been
affected by activities related to the docking and cargo operations conducted during each
voyage instead of conducting a full routine visual inspection per voyage (or per day, if there are
multiple voyages in one day). If the operator/owner employs such an approach, they must
conduct a full visual inspection of the vessel at least once per week.
The findings of each routine vessel inspection must be documented in the official ship logbook
or as a component of other recordkeeping documentation referenced in Part 4.2 of the VGP
(described below). The date and time of inspection, ship locations inspected, personnel
conducting the inspection, location of any visual sampling and observations, and potential
problems and sources of contamination must be documented and signed by the person
conducting the inspection, if not the Master. The person conducting the inspection must be a
signatory under 40 CFR 122.22. A signatory includes the person in charge (e.g., the Master), or
his duly authorized representative. The records of routine visual inspections must be made
available to EPA or its authorized representative upon request. Vessel operators must initiate
corrective actions, as required under Part 3 of the VGP, for problems noted in their inspections.
Extended Unmanned Period (EUP) Inspections
A vessel is considered to be in an extended unmanned period (EUP) if the vessel is temporarily
(e.g., for storage or repair) unmanned, fleeted, jacked-up, or otherwise has its navigation
systems and main propulsion shut down (e.g., a vessel in drydock or extended lay-up) for 13
days or greater. Immediately before a vessel is placed in an EUP, the vessel operator must conduct
a pre-lay-up inspection. During an EUP, a vessel owner/operator may elect to either continue
conducting routine inspections of the vessel consistent with Part 4.1.1 of the VGP, or he or she
may conduct an EUP Inspection. The EUP inspection is an alternative inspection for fleeted,
jacked-up, or similarly situated vessels, which routinely go into temporary or extended periods
of lay-up. Vessel owners/operators may conduct EUP inspections in lieu of routine visual
inspections if they are up-to-date with all other inspection and reporting requirements found in
Part 4 of the permit.
While a vessel is in EUP, the owner/operator or an authorized representative must examine the
outside of the vessel and surrounding waters at least once every two weeks for any evidence of
leaks, loss of cargo, or any other spills that might result in an unauthorized discharge. If any
deficiencies are observed while the vessel is in EUP, the vessel owner/operator must document
those deficiencies and the corrective actions taken to resolve those deficiencies. If a visible
sheen is noted on the surface of the surrounding water, the source of the oil must be identified
Chapter 16 - Page 447
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
and corrective action must be taken immediately. Furthermore, EPA must be notified of the
visible sheen in accordance with Part 4.4 of the VGP.
Analytical Monitoring
Analytical monitoring requirements for specific discharge types are identified in Parts 2.2.2, 2.2.3,
2.2.15, and 2.2.26 of the VGP, and for specific vessel types in Part 5 of the VGP.
Comprehensive Annual Vessel Inspections
Comprehensive vessel inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel at least once
every 12 months. Qualified personnel include the master or owner/operator of the vessel, if
appropriately trained, or appropriately trained marine or environmental engineers or
technicians or an appropriately trained representative of a vessel's class society acting on
behalf of the owner/operator.
Comprehensive annual inspections must cover all areas of the vessel affected by the
requirements in the VGP that can be inspected without forcing a vessel into drydock. Special
attention should be paid to those areas most likely to result in a discharge likely to cause or
contribute to exceedances of water quality standards or violate effluent limits established in
the VGP. Areas that inspectors must examine include, but are not limited to:
• Vessel hull for attached living organisms, flaking antifoulant paint, exposed TBT or other
organotin surfaces.
• Ballast water tanks, as applicable.
• Bilges, pumps, and oily water separator sensors, as applicable.
• Protective seals for lubrication and hydraulic oil leaks.
• Oil and chemical storage areas, cargo areas, and waste storage areas.
• All visible pollution control measures to ensure that they are functioning properly.
If any of these portions of the vessel are not inspectable without the vessel entering drydock,
the vessel owner/operator must inspect these areas during their drydock inspection and their
results must be documented in their drydock inspection reports. Furthermore, vessel
owner/operators must document which portions of the vessel are not inspectable for the
annual inspection in their recordkeeping documentation.
The annual inspections must also include a review of monitoring data collected in accordance
with Part 5 of the VGP if applicable, and routine maintenance records to ensure that required
maintenance is being performed (e.g., annual tune-ups for small boats that have wet exhaust).
Inspectors must also consider the results of the past year's visual and analytical monitoring
when planning and conducting inspections.
When comprehensive vessel inspection schedules overlap with routine vessel inspections
required under Part 4.1.1 of the VGP, the annual comprehensive vessel inspection may also be
used as one of the routine inspections, as long as components of both types of inspections are
included.
Chapter 16 - Page 448
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If inspections revealed flaws that would result in a violation of the effluent limits in Parts 2 and
5 of the VGP, or that indicated that control measures are not functioning as anticipated or are
in need of repair or upgrade, corrective action must be taken to resolve such flaws in
accordance with Part 3 of the VGP. All results from the annual inspection must be recorded in
the vessel's recordkeeping documentation or logbook.
Drydock Inspection Reports
Vessel owner/operators must make any drydock reports prepared by the class society or their
flag administrations available to EPA or an authorized representative of EPA upon request. If
drydock reports are not available from either of these entities, vessels must prepare their own
drydock report and it must be made available to EPA or an authorized representative of EPA
upon request. The drydock report must note that:
• The chain locker has been cleaned for both sediment and living organisms.
• The vessel hull, propeller, rudder, thruster gratings, sea chest, and other surface areas
of the vessel have been inspected for attached living organisms and those organisms
have been removed or neutralized.
• Any antifouling hull coatings have been applied, maintained and removed consistent
with the FIFRA label if applicable; any exposed existing or any new coating does not
contain biocides or toxics that are banned for use in the United States.
• All cathodic protection, anodes or dialectic coatings have been cleaned and/or replaced
to reduce flaking.
• All pollution control equipment is properly functioning.
PERMIT RECORDKEEPING
All vessels covered by the VGP permit must keep written records on the vessel or
accompanying tug that include the following information:
• Owner/vessel information:
- Name.
- International Maritime Organization (IMO) number (official number if IMO number
not issued).
- Vessel type.
- Owner or operator company name.
- Owner or operator certifying official's name.
- Address of owner/operator.
- Gross tonnage.
- Call sign.
- Port of registry (flag).
Chapter 16 - Page 449
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Voyage Log. Include the dates and ports of arrival, vessel agent(s), last port and country
of call, and next port and country of call (when known).
• Documentation and records of any and all violations of the effluent limit including:
- A description of the violation.
- Date of the violation.
- Name, title and signature of the person who identified the violation.
- Name, title and signature of the person who is recording the violation (if different
from the person who identified the violation).
- If a Corrective Action Assessment pursuant to Part 3.2 of the VGP is needed, attach a
copy or indicate where the corrective action assessment is stored.
- If a Corrective Action Assessment was previously conducted pursuant to Part 3.2 of
the VGP (and revisions are not needed for this violation of the effluent limit), a
reference to that previous corrective action assessment.
• Log of deficiencies and problems found during routine inspections, including a
discussion of any corrective actions required by Part 3 of the VGP if applicable. Include
date, inspector's name, findings, and corrective actions planned or taken. If no
deficiencies or problems are found during a routine inspection, record that the
inspection was completed with the inspector's name and date. Routine visual
inspections must be recorded as completed according to Part 4.1.1 of the VGP.
• Log of findings from drydock inspections conducted under Part 4.1.4 including a
discussion of any corrective actions planned or taken as required by Part 3 of the VGP.
Include date, inspector's name, findings, and a description of the corrective actions
taken.
• Analytical results of all monitoring conducted under Part 4.1.2 of the VGP, including
sample documentation, results, and laboratory QA documentation.
• Log of findings from annual inspections conducted under Part 4.1.3 of the VGP,
including a discussion of any corrective actions planned or taken required by Part 3 of
the VGP. Include date, inspector's name, findings, and corrective actions taken.
• Record of any specific requirements in Part 2.3 of the VGP given to the vessel by EPA, or
clearly posted by state agencies and how the vessel has met those requirements.
• Additional maintenance and discharge information to be recorded and kept in a log on
the vessel:
- Deck maintenance. Record dates, materials used, application process, etc. for any
significant maintenance of the deck surface(s) (e.g., more than routine, daily
cleaning activities, such as sweeping).
- Bilgewater. Record dates, location, oil concentration (for MARPOL vessels) or visible
sheen observation (non-MARPOL vessels), and estimated volume of bilgewater
Chapter 16 - Page 450
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
discharges. Record the same information for bilgewater disposed at onshore
locations.
- Paint application. Record dates, materials used, application process, etc. for any
antifouling paint applied to the vessel.
- AFFF. Record dates, estimated volumes, and constituents of any discharges of AFFF.
- Chain locker inspections. Dates of inspections and any rinsing conducted within
waters subject to the VGP.
- Controllable pitch propeller, stern tube, and other oil-to-sea interface maintenance.
Record dates and locations of any maintenance of controllable pitch propellers that
occurs while the vessel is in waters subject to the VGP.
- Any emergencies requiring discharges otherwise prohibited to federally protected
waters.
- Gas Turbine Water Wash. Record date and estimated volume of any discharge of gas
turbine wash water within waters subject to the VGP. If hauled or disposed onshore,
record log hauler and volume.
- Estimated volume and location of graywater discharged while in waters subject to
the VGP.
- All other documentation requirements stated in the VGP.
- Record of training completed as required by the VGP.
For purposes of the VGP, records may be kept electronically if the records are:
• In a format that can be read in a similar manner as a paper record.
• Legally dependable with no less evidentiary value than their paper equivalent.
• Accessible to the inspector during an inspection to the same extent as a paper copy
stored on the vessel would be, if the records were stored in paper form.
ADDITIONAL RECORDKEEPING FOR VESSELS EQUIPPED WITH BALLAST TANKS
Except for vessels operating exclusively within one Captain of the Port Zone (COTP zone),
vessels equipped with ballast tanks that are bound for a port or place in the United States must
meet the recordkeeping requirements of 33 CFR Part 151.
The master, owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel bound for a port or place in the
United States must keep written records that include the following information:
• Total ballast water information. Include the total ballast water capacity, total volume of
ballast water on board, total number of ballast water tanks, and total number of ballast
water tanks in ballast. Use units of measurement such as metric tons (MT), cubic meters
(m3), long tons (LT), and short tons (ST).
• Ballast water management. Include the total number of ballast tanks/holds that are to
be discharged into the waters of the United States or to a reception facility. If an
alternative ballast water management method is used, note the number of tanks that
Chapter 16 - Page 451
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
were managed using an alternative method, as well as the type of method used.
Indicate whether the vessel has a ballast water management plan and IMO guidelines
on board, and whether the ballast water management plan is used.
• Information on ballast water tanks that are to be discharged into waters subject to the
VGP or to a reception facility. Include the following:
— The origin of ballast water. This includes date(s); location(s), including latitude and
longitude and port (if relevant); volume(s); and temperature(s). If a tank has been
exchanged, list the loading port of the ballast water that was discharged during the
exchange.
— The date(s), location(s) (including latitude and longitude), volume(s), method,
thoroughness (percentage exchanged if exchange conducted), sea height at time of
exchange if exchange conducted, of any ballast water exchanged or otherwise
managed.
— The expected date, location, volume, and salinity of any ballast water to be
discharged into waters of the United States or a reception facility.
• Discharge of sediment. If sediment is to be discharged into a facility within the
jurisdiction of the United States include the location of the facility where the disposal
will take place.
The ballast water reporting forms must be kept on board the vessel and must be submitted to
the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse before arriving to US ports if required by the US
Coast Guard. In addition, all vessels which conduct saltwater flushing as required by Part 2.2.3.7
and Part 2.2.3.8 of the VGP, but do not report saltwater flushing to the NBIC, must instead keep
a record of saltwater flushing to meet the requirements of the permit.
PERMIT REPORTING
Annual Reports
For each vessel, owners/operators are required to submit an Annual Report for each year that
they have active permit coverage. For vessels that must file NOIs, this means for as long as they
have an active NOI. For vessels that need not file an NOI, they maintain active coverage as long
as they are operating in waters subject to the VGP, provided they have signed and maintain a
copy of the PARI form. Annual Reports must be completed each calendar year and submitted by
February 28 of the following year (e.g., the 2014 annual report is due by February 28, 2015).
All analytical monitoring results must be submitted to EPA as part of the Annual Report.
The vessel owner/operator shall complete the Annual Report form provided in Appendix H of
the permit and submit it to EPA electronically. It can be completed online by accessing EPA's
main NPDES vessel webpage (available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels-vgp or through
EPA's eNOI system https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/vgpenoi/f?p=102:101).
The vessel owner/operator shall respond to all questions accurately and completely, and
provide the necessary information and/or data to support each response. Unless one of the
Chapter 16 - Page 452
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
exceptions in Part 1.14 of the VGP is met, the vessel owner/operator must submit each Annual
Report electronically in accordance with the procedures described in Part 1.14 of the VGP.
If the operator/owner is required to submit a hard copy of the Annual Report, they must send
the completed annual report to EPA HQ (Attn: Vessel Annual Report, Mail Code 4203M, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460). Hard copy reports must be postmarked by
February 21 of the following calendar year (i.e., the 2014 annual report must be postmarked by
February 21, 2015).
The Annual Report replaces the annual noncompliance report and one-time report
requirements found in the 2008 VGP. All instances of noncompliance must be reported as part
of the Annual Report.
Combined Annual Reports for Unmanned, Unpowered Barges or Vessels less than 300 Gross Tons
Operators of unmanned, unpowered barges or other vessels less than 300 gross tons (e.g.,
small tug boats) may submit a single annual report (referred to as the Combined Annual Report)
for multiple vessels and/or barges if all of the following conditions are met:
• The answers for each barge or vessel for which the report is to be submitted are the
same.
• Each barge or vessel was not required to conduct any analytical monitoring.
• The Combined Annual Report is submitted electronically.
• There were no instances of noncompliance for any barge or vessel and no instances of
identified deficiencies by EPA or its authorized representatives during any inspections
during the previous 12 months.
• Each barge or vessel has an NOI permit number or, if not required to submit an NOI, a
commonly used unique identifier (e.g., registration number) so EPA can identify the
vessel. For vessels less than 300 gross tons that have not submitted an NOI, the unique
identifier numbers must be entered on the combined annual report.
Vessel owners/operators of unmanned, unpowered barges or vessels less than 300 gross tons
may submit a Combined Annual Report for some or most of their fleet, or submit individual
Annual Reports if they prefer. Individual Annual Reports are required for any barges or other
vessels that are not eligible for the Combined Annual Report, as specified above.
Reporting Quantities of Hazardous Substances or Oil
Although not a requirement of the VGP, if a discharge contains a hazardous substance or oil in
an amount equal to or more than a reportable quantity established under 40 CFR Part 110, 40
CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR Part 302, during a 24-hour period, the National Response Center (NRC)
must be notified (dial 800-424-8802 or 202-426-2675 in the Washington, DC area). Also, within
14 calendar days of knowledge of the release, the date and description of the release, the
circumstances leading to the release, responses to be employed for such releases, and
measures to prevent reoccurrence of such releases must be recorded in recordkeeping
documentation consistent with Part 4.2 of the VGP.
Chapter 16 - Page 453
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Where a discharge of hazardous substances or oil exceeding reportable quantities occurs, such
discharge is not authorized by the VGP and may also be a violation of section 311 of the CWA.
Note that these spills must be reported as described above. Also applicable are section 311 of
the CWA and certain provisions of sections 301 and 402 of the CWA.
Additional Reporting
Vessels are also subject to the standard permit reporting provisions referenced in Part 1.13 of
the VGP (standard permit reporting provisions published at 40 CFR 122.41).
Where applicable, vessels must submit the following reports to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office listed in Part 8 of the VGP as applicable:
• 24-hour reporting. Report any noncompliance that may endanger health or the
environment. Any information must be provided orally within 24 hours from the time
the vessel owners/operators becomes aware of the circumstances.
• 5-day follow-up reporting to the 24-hour reporting. A written submission must also be
provided within five days of the time the vessel owner/operator becomes aware of the
circumstances.
If the operator/owner reports to the NRC as referenced in Part 4.4.3 of the permit, they do not
need to complete reporting under this part.
VESSEL INSPECTION OVERVIEW
Purpose of VGP Inspections
On February 11, 2011, EPA and the US Coast Guard (USCG) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to establish cooperation and coordination in implementing and enforcing
the national VGP. Under the MOU, USCG has agreed to incorporate components of EPA's VGP
program into its existing inspection protocols and procedures to help the United States address
vessel pollution in U.S. waters. The MOU creates a framework for improving EPA and USCG
cooperation on data tracking, training, monitoring, enforcement and industry outreach. The
agencies have also agreed to improve existing data requirements so that information on
potential violations observed during inspections can be sent to EPA for evaluation and follow-
up.
Although the USCG will conduct most inspections, there are some universes of vessels for which
they do not have jurisdiction. EPA and/or states that are authorized to enforce the VGP will
need to conduct inspections to take enforcement actions against such vessels.
EPA Authority for VGP Inspections
EPA has the authority to regulate and inspect vessels through statutory requirements
established in the CWA:
• EPA's long-standing exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels
from the NPDES program at 40 CFR 122.3(a) was vacated as of September 30, 2008,
Chapter 16 - Page 454
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
making these discharges subject to CWA section 301 regulation's prohibition against
discharges unless covered under an NPDES permit.
• The regulations at 40 CFR 122.28 establish procedures for issuing a general permit to
cover categories of point sources having common elements, such as facilities that
involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, that discharge the same
types of wastes, or that are more appropriately regulated by general permit. 40 CFR
123.25 provides State Programs the legal authority to implement and administer
general permits issued under 40 CFR 122.28.
• CWA section 402 states that permittees issued permits for point source discharges of
pollutants must meet specific discharge limits and operating conditions.
• CWA section 308 authorizes inspections and monitoring to determine whether NPDES
permit conditions are being met.
• Under the CWA, EPA may conduct an inspection wherever there is an existing NPDES
permit, where a discharge exists or might exist, and where no permit has been issued.
The CWA established enforcement authorities. EPA retains independent authority to
take enforcement actions in both authorized and unauthorized states.
• CWA section 309(a) allows EPA to administer administrative compliance orders for
persons violating the CWA and to set a reasonable schedule for compliance (violation
notice).
• CWA section 309(b), section 309(d), and section 404 provide for injunctive relief and
civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each violation of the act.
• CWA section 309(c)(4) provides that falsifying, tampering with, or knowingly rendering
inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained is punishable by
a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
• CWA section 309(c) provides for criminal penalties of a fine of $2,500 to $25,000 per
day, or up to 1 year of imprisonment, or both, for negligent violations of the act (for
subsequent convictions, fines of up to $50,000 per day or 2 years of imprisonment, or
both, may be called for).
• CWA section 309(g) allows EPA to assess administrative penalties of two classes.
• Administrative actions may preclude other civil action penalties or citizen suits.
- Class I, with an informal hearing process, can carry penalties of up to $25,000.
- Class II involves formal administrative procedure hearings with penalties of up to
$125,000.
VGP INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Pre-lnspection Activities
The primary role of the inspector is to gather information that can be used to evaluate
compliance with permit conditions, applicable regulations, and other requirements. Inspectors
should be familiar with the conditions of the specific permit and with all applicable statutes and
Chapter 16 - Page 455
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
regulations. Prior to conducting a VGP inspection, the inspector should complete the following
pre-inspection preparation activities listed below. Careful and thorough preparation is critical
for conducting a professional and efficient inspection.
• Become familiar with the vessel and the types of discharges associated with the vessel
type. Review the "Vessel Discharge Description" subsection below for summary
information.
• Review the conditions of the permit.
• Collect as much paperwork as possible regarding the vessel before conducting the
inspection (e.g., ballast management plan, discharge paperwork, prior inspection
reports). EPA has posted on its website all vessel NOIs submitted by vessel owners. You
can use this public EPA webpage to search, sort, and view these NOIs:
https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/vgpenoi/f?p=vgp:Search. Search results reflect real time
data. (Note, however, that only vessels greater than or equal to 300 gross tons, or
vessels with the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2,113 gallons)
of ballast water, are required to submit a NOI.) Annual Reports, including any applicable
monitoring results submitted as part of a vessel's reporting requirements, will be
publicly available on EPA's webpage at
https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/vgpenoi/f?p=vgp:Search. The first reports for the 2013
VGP were due to EPA by February 28, 2015. In addition, the One-time reports,
submitted as part of the 2008 VGP, are searchable via EPA's VGP webpage at
https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/aps/f?p=VOTR_2008:HOME:
• To facilitate the VGP inspection process, prepare your inspection procedure in written
form and make a form or a checklist for use in documenting the inspection. See the
Coast Guard CG-543 Policy Letter 11-01 or numerous trade association checklists for
examples of these tools.
• If possible, conduct one or more joint inspections with the USCG to obtain on-the-job
training, especially for inspecting deep draft vessels. Inspectors should be familiar with
CG-840 inspection books used by the USCG for vessel inspections.
On-site Activities
To conduct the inspection, the inspector should use a notebook for field notes, personal
protection equipment (PPE), and a camera to take photographs. Before boarding the vessel,
conduct the following visual inspection activities:
• Observe the water line and waters surrounding the vessel for:
- Traces of oil or an oily sheen, especially the areas of the vessel stern (where the
screw and stern tube would be located), locations of thrusters, and other areas of
expected oil to sea interfaces.
- Look for fish kills and any other signs of pollution.
- Excessive hull fouling.
Chapter 16 - Page 456
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Check for evidence of use of prohibited antifoulant coatings containing TBT, and check
the condition of any TBT overcoating.
After completing the preliminary visual inspection, board the vessel via the gangway and meet
the vessel's Watch Officer. Introduce yourself and ask to meet with the Chief Engineer.20
Inspectors should use a respectful tone when speaking with vessel personnel, as they are, at a
minimum, representing the EPA when boarding a U.S. flagged vessel, and, at a maximum,
representing the United States when boarding a foreign-flagged vessel.
Vessel security is an important consideration; therefore, inspectors lacking military or other
authorized identification should anticipate resistance, and possibly lengthy delays, prior to
boarding. Inspectors lacking a Transportation Work Identification Credential (TWIC) may
require an escort at all times. Additional authorization may be required to take photos. Foreign-
flagged vessels may request that a representative from their class society or other agent be
present for the inspection.
After boarding the vessel, you will likely be escorted to a conference room or Captain's
quarters. The typical inspection sequence includes:
• Entry interview
• Record and document review
• Visual inspection
• Exit interview
• Inspection report
Entry Interview
The inspector should request the presence of the Chief Engineer as well as the Master to
conduct the entry interview. During the entry interview the inspector should:
• Present credentials authorizing the inspection.
• Seek consent for an on-site inspection.
• Inform the vessel owner or operator of the scope and purpose of the inspection.
• Reference the VGP and VGP Fact Sheet concerning the regulation of vessel discharges,
and have access to these resources during the inspection, if possible.
• Confirm basic information about the vessel collected during pre-inspection activities:
- If applicable, verify permit number, vessel owner/operator name, operator IMO
number, and vessel information such as vessel name, IMO number, call sign, flag
state, vessel type, vessel dimensions, ballast water capacity, etc.
- Identify the authorized representative of the vessel.
20 Vessels such as large cruise ships may also have an Environmental Officer, while barges may be manned by only
a Tanker Man; therefore, avoid boarding during cargo transfer.
Chapter 16 - Page 457
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Identify applicable vessel discharges and ask questions regarding discharge-specific
permit requirements. For example, ask the Master and Chief Engineer about the
following discharges:
¦ AFFF.
¦ Bilgewater (e.g., How is bilgewater managed? Are bilgewater discharges
documented in the oil record logbook?).
¦ Ballast water (e.g., How is ballast water managed, where is it discharged?).
¦ Graywater (e.g., How is graywater managed while the vessel is pier-side? Is it
discharged pier-side? How is graywater minimized while operating in waters
subject to the permit?).
— Request copies of specific records that might be required by the permit.
— Ask questions concerning the history of the vessel, including any discharge violations
that have occurred.
- Determine vessel conditions as they exist at the time of the inspection.
• If desired, inform the operator what information, if any, will be available after the
inspection.
Record and Document Review
The inspector should also ask to see the records required to be kept by the vessel's permit,
management plans, and records documenting vessel compliance with the terms and conditions
of its permit. Records must be kept onboard or electronically (see EPA's FAQ at
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels-frequent-questions). Records from the last 3 years are
required to be onboard the vessel. The inspector may ask for certification of the accuracy of the
data contained in these records. Typical records that the inspector may ask the facility to
produce include:
• VGP compliance binder (if available)
• NOI (if applicable)
• One-time report (if applicable)
• Comprehensive annual vessel inspection report (if applicable)
• Drydock inspection report (if applicable)
• Analytical monitoring results (if applicable)
• Voyage log
• Oil record logbook
• Ballast water management plan
• Maintenance and discharge information paperwork
• Emergency discharge logs and associated corrective action forms
• Routine and quarterly inspection logs (or self-inspection forms)
• Annual inspection report
Chapter 16 - Page 458
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
As needed, the inspector should request photocopies of documents that will assist in preparing
the inspection report.
Visual Inspection
After reviewing the records and documents, the inspector should ask for an escort to
accompany him or her on a tour of the vessel. The purpose of the vessel tour is to assess
existing conditions and confirm that the vessel conforms to the description of the permit.
During this phase of the inspection, the inspector will want to observe the following portions of
the vessel:
• Deck. While on deck, ask questions such as what is done with chain locker sediment,
and when chain locker cleaning is performed. Visually inspect the deck for cleanliness
and for the presence of cargos or materials that might wash overboard, dissolve with
precipitation or surface water spray, or blow overboard. Observe the condition of the
topside surface and above water line hull (presence of rust, paint chips, etc.). Visually
inspect the presence and cleanliness of deck machinery coamings or drip pans to collect
any oily water and to prevent spills. Ask questions regarding good housekeeping
practices for the deck and above water line hull.
• Engine room. Inspect the cleanliness of the bilge and observe the presence of visibly oily
bilgewater. Ask questions regarding the bilge good housekeeping practices and about
the management and discharge of bilgewater. Observe any evidence of use of
dispersants, detergents, or other materials to remove the appearance of visible sheen in
bilgewater.
• Galley and scullery. While in the galley, ask the chief cook questions such as what is
done with used/excess cooking oil, and operation of the garbage grinder or food pulping
system. Ask about use of soaps and detergents and consider requesting their Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).
• Toxic and hazardous material storage areas. Inspect areas such as paint storage area(s),
laundry room(s), cleaning supply storage area(s), photography room(s), etc. to ensure
materials are appropriately stored, labeled and secured. Consider requesting MSDSs for
any soaps and detergents.
To document observations or areas of potential concern during the inspection, the inspector
should take photographs. If the vessel is discharging during the inspection, the inspector might
also consider collecting samples of the discharge.21 During the visual inspection, the inspector
might determine that additional records or documents are needed for review. The inspector
should ask the Master or Chief Engineer for these additional records as soon as they are
identified to facilitate retrieval of the needed information.
21 Samples should only be collected if appropriate sampling equipment (e.g., sample bottles, gloves, labels, custody
records, etc.) brought aboard by the inspector are appropriate for the specific discharge.
Chapter 16 - Page 459
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Note that there are areas of vessels that environmental inspectors should not enter for reasons
of safety (e.g., cargo pump control room). See Section D, "
Safety," below.
Exit Interview
Following the visual inspection, the inspector conducts a debriefing or exit interview with the
Master or Chief Engineer. This phase of the inspection allows both parties to clarify issues that
arose during the inspection. If any records or documents were obtained during the inspection,
the inspector prepares a Receipt for Documents and Samples. The inspector also gives the
vessel operator/owner the opportunity to claim that some or all the information provided
during the inspection is confidential business information (CBI).
The inspector may relay basic observations or areas of concern of the inspection. The inspector
does not make the determinations of compliance or noncompliance of the vessel during the
inspection; that determination is made when the inspection report is prepared using
information obtained during the inspection.
Inspection Report
The inspection report includes the inspection checklist (if used), documentation copied during
the inspection, an explanation of findings, and supporting photographs. In some cases, the
inspector might need to contact the vessel if additional information is needed or issues require
clarification.
Compliance personnel for the regulatory authority review the inspection report and evaluate
whether the vessel is in noncompliance. They will determine what type of follow-up action, if
any, is appropriate. Copies of the report are sent to the inspected vessel. EPA responds to
noncompliance in several different ways, depending on the nature and circumstances of the
violation:
• No follow-up needed
• Letter notifying the facility of violations or compliance assistance
• Administrative compliance order
• Administrative compliance order plus administrative penalty
• Civil judicial enforcement action (penalties and/or injunctive relief)
• Criminal enforcement
Vessel Discharge Description
The inspector should understand the types of discharges expected on different vessel types
before conducting an inspection. See Table 16-1 for descriptions of the various discharges and
the vessel types likely to discharge them. Refer to Section 3.5.1 of the VGP Fact Sheet for more
detailed descriptions of the vessel discharges.
Chapter 16 - Page 460
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 16-1. Vessel Discharge Descriptions
Vessel Discharge
Description
Anti-Fouling Hull
Coatings
Anti-fouling coatings are applied to the vessel hull and sea water piping
systems to limit attachment of aquatic species. Virtually all vessels that are
permanently kept in saltwater use antifouling coatings. Biocides such as
copper contained in anti-fouling coatings continuously leach into
surrounding waters.
Aqueous Film Forming
Foam (AFFF)
Firefighting agent added to fire suppression systems on some vessels to
create foam. Used infrequently (annually or semi-annually) to test
equipment for maintenance, certification, or training. Constituents include
fluorosurfactants and/or fluoroproteins.
Ballast Water
Ballast water is water taken onboard in large volumes on large numbers of
commercial vessels to assist with vessel draft, buoyancy, and stability. Ballast
capacities vary by vessel type, for example more than 20 million gallons for
container ships. Ballast water is a known transport vector for aquatic
nuisance species and can also contain metals and suspended solids.
Bilgewater
Bilgewater is generated by all vessels and consists of water and other
residue that accumulates in a compartment of the vessel's hull. The source
of bilgewater is typically drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms,
and from deck drainage. Bilgewater typically contains seawater, oil, grease,
nutrients, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, inorganic salts, and
metals.
Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
Engine wet exhaust effluent is generated when engine cooling water (both
propulsion engines and generators) is injected into the engine exhaust. The
engine cooling water decreases the exhaust temperature, reduces engine
noise and reduces exhaust emissions. Engine wet exhaust discharge rates
can range from 5 to 10 gallons per minute to more than 100 gallons per
minute on larger diesel engines operating at high inputs. Large commercial
vessels occasionally operate small auxiliary craft that discharge engine wet
exhaust (e.g., life boats on cruise ships); however, discharge volumes for
these vessels are negligible as they are typically seldom used. Pollutants in
the engine wet exhaust can include oil and grease, metals, volatile organic
compounds and semivolatile organic compounds.
Boiler/Economizer
Blowdown
Boiler blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion or a steam
generator and is used to control the concentration of scaling constituents in
boiler systems. Boiler blowdown are infrequent, of short duration (seconds),
in small volumes, and at high pressure. The blowdown can contain water and
steam or sludge-bearing water at elevated temperatures (above 325°F). The
discharge can contain metals or boiler water treatment chemicals.
Cathodic Protection
Nearly all vessels having steel hulls or metal hull appendages use cathodic
protection systems to prevent corrosion. Based on underwater hull
inspections and maintenance records, one-half of an anode is consumed
after three years. The primary pollutant released from cathodic protection is
zinc. Average pier-side and underway zinc generation rates are 1.3 x 10 s and
5.1 x 10 s (lb. zinc/square foot of underwater surface area)/hr., respectively.
Chapter 16 - Page 461
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 16-1. Vessel Discharge Descriptions
Vessel Discharge
Description
Chain Locker Effluent
Chain locker effluent is water that drips from the anchor chain and anchor
during anchor retrieval. Discharge volumes are small and chain locker
effluent is expected to contain sediment, some marine organisms, zinc, rust,
paint, grease, and any constituents from the fire main water. The small
volume of chain locker effluent results in small mass loadings and provides
little opportunity for the transfer of non-indigenous species.
Deck Washdown and
Runoff and Above the
Water Line Hull
Cleaning3
Deck washdown and runoff occurs from all vessels as a result of deck
cleaning and precipitation. Constituents in the discharge can include
detergent, soap, deck surface components (e.g., rust, paint chips) and
anything dropped, spilled, dripped, or scattered onto the deck surface.
Distillation and Reverse
Osmosis Brine
Discharges of brine can occur on vessels that do not bunker potable water
but instead use onboard plants to distill seawater or desalinate seawater
using reverse osmosis (RO) to generate fresh water. Distillation units
generate brine at a rate of 17 gallons of brine for every gallon of fresh water
produced. RO units generate approximately 4 gallons of brine for every
gallon of fresh water produced. The three sources of the constituents of
water purification plant discharge are: 1) influent seawater; 2) anti-scaling
treatment chemicals; and 3) the purification plant components, including
heat exchangers, casings, pumps, piping and fittings. The primary
constituents of the brine discharge are identical to those in seawater;
however, they are more concentrated due to volume reduction.
Elevator Pit Effluent
Large vessels with multiple decks are equipped with elevators to facilitate
the transportation of maintenance equipment, people, and cargo between
decks. A pit at the bottom of the elevator shaft collects small amounts of
liquids and debris from elevator operations and deck washdown and runoff
depending on the elevator configuration. Water entering the elevator pit can
contain materials that were on the deck, including fuel, hydraulic fluid,
lubricating oil, residual water, and AFFF. The runoff may also include
lubricant applied to the elevator doors, door tracks, and other moving
elevator parts. Residue in the elevator car from the transport of materials
may also be washed into the elevator pit. The cleaning solvent used during
maintenance cleaning operations as well as liquid wastes generated by the
cleaning process drain into the elevator pit sump.
Exhaust Gas Scrubber
Washwater Discharge
Exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge occurs as a result of cleaning the
exhaust gas system on marine diesel engines. The washwater discharge can
be highly acidic, and can also contain traces of oil, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and nitrogen. Washwater volumes of 2.8
million gallons per day are estimated from a 10 MWh engine.
Fire main Systems
Fire main systems are found on many vessels and draw in water through the
sea chest to supply water for fire hose stations and sprinkler systems.
Systems are activated during testing or during an actual fire. Small amounts
of metals may be added to the fire water from the vessel piping system.
Chapter 16 - Page 462
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 16-1. Vessel Discharge Descriptions
Vessel Discharge
Description
Freshwater Layup
Freshwater layup is generated when a vessel is pier side or in port for more
than a few days, the main steam plant is shut down, and the condensers do
not circulate. A freshwater layup includes replacing the seawater in the
system with potable or surrounding freshwater (e.g., lake water). Freshwater
layup discharges can be as large as 6,000 gallons per evolution and can
contain residual saltwater, freshwater, tap water, and possibly metals
leached from the pipes or machinery.
Gas Turbine Wash Water
Gas turbines are used for propulsion and electricity generation on some
vessels. Occasionally, they must be cleaned to remove byproducts that can
accumulate and affect their operation. Large naval vessels can generate up
to 244 gallons of washwater per day. Wash water can include salts,
lubricants, and combustion residuals.
Graywater and
Graywater Mixed with
Sewage
Graywater Mixed with
Sewage
Nearly all commercial vessels generate some form of graywater. Graywater
is water from showers, baths, sinks, galleys, and laundry facilities. Graywater
volumes vary depending on the number of passengers on board and can
range from a few gallons per day on tug boats to tens of thousands of
gallons per day on large cruise ships. Graywater can contain high levels of
pathogens, nutrients, soaps and detergents, and organics.
Motor Gasoline and
Compensating Discharge
Motor gasoline is transported on vessels to operate vehicles and other
machinery. As the fuel is used, ambient water is added to the fuel tanks to
replace the weight. This ambient water is discharged when the vessel refills
the tanks with gasoline or when performing maintenance. Most vessels are
designed not to have motor gasoline and compensating discharge. The
volume of the compensating discharge is expected to range from less than
50 gallons to up a few hundred gallons. The discharge can contain small
amounts of fuel and other fuel-related pollutants.
Non-oily Machinery
Wastewater
Some larger vessels are expected to have some non-oily machinery
discharges, such as distilling plants start-up discharge, chilled water
condensate drains, fresh- and saltwater pump drains, and potable water
tank overflows. These flows are generally low in volume and are not
expected to contain significant amounts of pollutants.
Refrigeration and Air
Condensate Discharge
Condensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils of air conditioning
systems drips from the coils and collects in drip troughs which typically
empty to a drainage system. Large numbers of vessels are equipped with
refrigeration systems to keep food and other perishable items from spoiling.
Air conditioning systems are also found on many vessels for passenger and
crew comfort. Condensates may contain very small amounts of pollutants
such as metals derived from vessel piping systems.
Seawater Cooling
Overboard Discharge15
Seawater cooling systems use ambient water to absorb the heat from heat
exchangers, propulsion systems, and mechanical auxiliary systems. The
water is typically circulated through an enclosed system that does not come
in direct contact with machinery, but still may contain sediment from water
intake, traces of hydraulic or lubricating oils, and trace metals leached or
eroded from the pipes within the system. Additionally, because it is used for
cooling, the effluent will have an increased temperature.
Chapter 16 - Page 463
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 16-1. Vessel Discharge Descriptions
Vessel Discharge
Description
Seawater Piping
Biofouling Prevention0
Some vessels that use seawater cooling systems introduce anti-fouling
compounds (e.g., sodium hypochlorite) in their interior piping and
component surfaces to inhibit the growth of fouling organisms. These anti-
fouling compounds are then typically discharged overboard. Most vessels
that have seawater piping systems are expected to use piping materials such
as copper to prevent biofouling rather than injecting high concentrations of
anti-fouling compounds into their piping systems.
Sonar Dome Discharge
Water is used to maintain the shape and pressure of domes that house sonar
detection, navigation, and ranging equipment on large vessels. Discharges
occasionally occur when the water must be drained for maintenance or
repair or from the exterior of the sonar dome. Sonar dome discharge
volumes on Naval vessels can range from 300 gallons per event up to 74,000
gallons per event. Pollutant levels are expected to be low due to the ban on
the use of tributyltin.
Stern Tube Packing
Gland Effluent and Other
Oil to Sea Interfaces
Nearly all commercial vessels with in-board engines have stern tube packing
gland surrounding the propeller shaft. The stern tube packing gland is
designed to leak a few drops per minute of ambient water (4 to 8 gallons per
day) to cool the gland when the vessel is underway. Pollutants in the stern
tube packing gland effluent include metals, oil and grease, suspended solids,
organics, and phthalates. Oil to sea interfaces include any mechanical or
other equipment where seals or surfaces may release small quantities of oil
and grease into the sea. Examples include controllable pitch propellers,
rudder bearings and wire ropes and cables that have lubricated (greased)
surfaces that are submerged in seawater during use.
Underwater Ship
Husbandry Discharges
Underwater ship husbandry is grooming, maintenance, and repair activities
of hulls or hull appendages performed while the vessel is in the water.
Underwater ship husbandry discharges can contain aquatic organisms and
residue such as rust and biocide from anti-fouling coating. Underwater ship
husbandry is typically performed only when excessive biological growth is
causing vessel drag and excessive fuel consumption outside of regular dry
dock inspections.
Welldeck Discharges
The welldeck is a floodable platform used for launching or loading small
satellite vessels, vehicles, and cargo from select vessels. Welldeck discharges
may include water from precipitation, welldeck and storage area
washdowns, equipment and engine washdowns, and leaks and spills from
stored machinery. Potential constituents of welldeck discharges include
fresh water, distilled water, fire main water, graywater, air-conditioning
condensate, sea-salt residues, paint chips, wood splinters, dirt, sand, organic
debris and marine organisms, oil, grease, fuel, detergents, combustion
byproducts, and lumber treatment chemicals.
a Wet-type fire main systems are commonly used to provide a water source for deck washing.
b Discharge is for non-contact cooling only and does not include engine wet exhaust.
c Discharge does not include anti-fouling coatings used to inhibit biogrowth; such discharges are considered anti-
fouling leachate.
Chapter 16 - Page 464
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
D. SAFETY HAZARDS
EXPECTED HAZARDS
The following sections list hazards inspectors can expect to encounter during vessel inspections.
The hazards fall into the following categories: physical, thermal, chemical and biological.
PHYSICAL HAZARDS
Inspectors should be aware of and alert for all physical hazards. The use of narrow walkways or
steep stairs may be necessary to access certain areas. Inspectors should keep one hand free to
hold the railing when using narrow stairways.
Inspectors should also be aware of working surface hazards, which may include slippery piers
and decks, low doorways, and trip hazards associated with steep narrow stairwells used to
enter and exit certain vessel areas. Inspectors should avoid boarding barges or tankers during
loading operations, as these operations may be dangerous. Inspectors must be familiar with the
location of floatable life rings and other flotation devices.
Noise will be a hazard on certain areas of the ship (e.g., the engine room). Hearing protection
should be used by inspectors where required by the ship, when crew members are having
trouble hearing or being heard when standing 3 feet or less away from another person.
Extreme caution is required to access certain vessels, particularly barges and tugboats. These
vessels may have narrow and dangerous gangways, or may require crossing multiple vessels
tied abreast at the pier by climbing over tires used as dock and vessel fenders.
THERMAL HAZARDS
The potential to encounter thermal hazards during inspections are significant as wastewater
from dishwashers and laundry is typically between 160°F to 180°F. Also, graywater pipes may
become heated when they run next to steam pipes. Inspectors must be aware of potential
thermal hazards from indirect contact caused by exposure due to proximity to a ship's
equipment (e.g., steam pipes, steam traps). Inspectors should note thermal hazard warning
signs from the ship's crew.
Inspectors may be exposed to hot environments for extended periods of time. Appropriate
clothing (i.e., clothing allowing free movement of cool dry air over skin) should be worn so as to
minimize the heat stress. Inspectors should be aware of abatement procedures for dealing with
a heat related illness.
CHEMICAL HAZARDS
MSDSs for each hazardous chemical used or stored onboard should be available for review
during an inspection.
Certain areas of the ship may have noxious fumes, such as paint storage and chemical storage
areas, or unsafe environments, such as the rope storage and chain lockers. Allow these areas to
Chapter 16 - Page 465
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
air out before entering during an inspection. A gas meter may be required to assure a safe
environment for entry.
The inspector should not go into the cargo pump control room during an inspection for safety
reasons.
BIOLOGICAL HAZARDS
Graywater mixed with sewage may potentially contain blood or other potentially infectious
material defined under OSHA's blood born pathogen regulations (29 CFR 1910.1030). Typically,
blood will not be present in domestic sewage unless it comes directly from the infirmary area of
the ship. OSHA recognizes that contact with raw sewage poses many health risks, but does not
consider contact with diluted raw sewage as an exposure route for blood-borne pathogens.
Nonetheless, inspectors who contact the domestic sewage portion of the wastewater
treatment system are to be aware of the potential danger and will be outfitted with proper
personal protective equipment (PPE) (i.e., nitrile gloves, Tyvek suites, splash goggles) to
minimize the chance for exposure. Inspectors are also recommended to have current Tetanus
and Hepatitis A and B immunizations to protect themselves against potential biological hazards.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)
While conducting vessel inspections, inspectors should wear appropriate protective attire
including:
• Non-skid shoes.
• Long sleeve coveralls, or long sleeve cotton shirt and long pants.
• Hearing protection in hearing conservation zones (e.g., the vessel's engine room).
• If visiting the vessel at drydock, additional PPE such as steel-toed shoes and hard hat
may be required.
E. VIOLATIONS AND EXAMPLES
COMMON VGP VIOLATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF GOOD AND BAD PRACTICES
Common VGP Violations
The most common violations inspectors can expect to encounter are paperwork-related,
including:
• Failure to submit an NOI (approximately half of all violations) or an annual report.
• Failure to perform routine, quarterly, and annual inspections and/or failure to
document these inspections (approximately 40 percent of violations).
• Failure to document oily water and ballast discharges (or ballast discharge report
submitted to EPA does not match ballast discharge records onboard the vessel).
• Failure to complete and/or maintain a copy of the PARI form onboard (for vessels
subject to VGP that are less than 300 gross tons and do not have the capacity to
discharge more than 8 cubic meters)
Chapter 16 - Page 466
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The VGP has many requirements for documentation that must be maintained in the ship's
logbook or other recordkeeping tool. However, there is no standardized recordkeeping format.
Some owners/operators prepare corporate VGP compliance manuals with inspection forms
that are used on all their vessels. Other owner/operators may use existing USCG forms or forms
required by their classification society for VGP recordkeeping. Inspectors need to be familiar
with permit requirements so they can assess whether the recordkeeping format and content
used by individual vessels meet requirements.
Certain types of vessels may be more likely to have permit violations than others. For example,
older vessels are more likely to have poor maintenance and poor housekeeping practices
compared to newer vessels. Bulk carriers tend to be older. Their engine rooms may have poor
housekeeping and are more likely to have oily water compliance issues. Their decks could be
disordered as a result of transporting unpackaged bulk cargos.
Most Important Discharges for Most Vessel Types
Certain discharges authorized by the permit are of greater concern than others for several
reasons. First, certain discharges generated in small quantities by relatively few vessels (e.g.,
exhaust gas scrubber washwater effluent, gas turbine water wash, and freshwater layup) are of
lesser concern. Second, some discharges contain few pollutants of concern at low
concentrations and have correspondingly few permit requirements, even if they are possibly
generated in large quantities, (e.g., distillation and reverse osmosis brine, non-oily machinery,
refrigeration and air condensate, seawater cooling overboard discharge, and sonar dome
discharge). As a result, inspectors are likely to focus most of their time on the following subset
of discharges:
• Deck washdown
• Bilgewater
• Ballast water
• Gray water
GOOD AND BAD PRACTICES
Note that many permit requirements include terms such as "minimize" pollutant discharges.
The term "minimize" means to reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using control
measures (including best management practices) that are technologically available and
economically practicable and achievable in light of best marine practice. Unfortunately for
inspectors, measures and practices that "minimize" pollutant discharges vary widely by vessel
type and individual vessels and are highly dependent on a vessel's purpose, service, and
operations. Therefore, what may represent good measures and practices onboard one vessel
may not represent good measures and practices onboard another. As mentioned previously,
vessels may have VGP compliance guides that specify the measures and practices to be used to
comply with the permit. However, it is not a requirement of the permit.
Chapter 16 - Page 467
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Below are examples of general good and bad practices for the most important discharges on
most vessels. Use of the good practices does not ensure compliance with the permit. Similarly,
used of bad practice does not necessarily constitute a permit violation.
Deck Washdown
Good practices include use of drip pans under deck machinery such as winches and generators
where feasible. Such drip pans should be emptied and cleaned to reduce the risk for pan
contents to wash overboard via precipitation, seaspray, or vessel movement. Deck surfaces and
above water line hull surfaces should be free from rust, paint chips, spilled cargos and other
materials, and debris. Deck washdowns should be performed according to standard industry
practices (e.g., broom clean followed by cleaning using hoses and non-toxic, phosphate-free,
and biodegradable soaps and detergents, followed by rising using hoses). Examples of bad
practices include lack of drip pans if it is clearly feasible that drip pans could be placed under
machinery to collect oily water; spills on the deck and other evidence of poor housekeeping;
peeling deck surfaces and paint; rust; abrasive power cleaning, resulting in stripping of paint
chips and then discharging them into receiving waters; and use of prohibited soaps and
detergents. Large vessels that regularly sail outside the territorial sea should not need to wash
their decks with fire hoses while pier-side.
Bilgewater
Good practices include a clean bilge, which indicates prompt clean-up of any oily drips and spills
(drums containing oily rags for proper shore-side disposal are further evidence of these good
practices). Other good practices include thorough documentation of bilgewater discharges in
the oil record logbook, routine calibration of the oil content meter, physically securing the
bilgewater discharge valve or disabling automatic bilge pumps while pier-side. Examples of bad
practices include a dirty bilge, use of "magic pipes" to bypass the oily water separator and oil
content meter, oil sheen in receiving waters following bilgewater discharge, and evidence of
use of dispersants/detergents to remove bilgewater sheen.
Ballast Water
Good practices include a ballast water management plan (if required) and maintenance of a
thorough ballast water discharge log. An example of a bad practice is if the ballast discharge
report submitted to EPA does not match ballast discharge records onboard the vessel.
Additionally, vessels with ballast water treatment systems that discharge into waters subject to
the VGP must monitor for biological indicator organisms and biocides or biocide derivatives.
Records of the sampling and testing results from the last 3 years must be onboard.
Graywater
Graywater is of most concern on cruise ships. Good practices include limiting graywater
generation from activities such as showering, dishwashing and laundry while pier-side, or using
a graywater storage tank to hold these wastewaters for later discharge if feasible. Other
examples include use of non-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable soaps and detergents for
general cleaning, laundry, and dishwashing. Examples of bad practices include obvious
disregard of permit requirements to minimize the discharge of graywater while in port. Other
examples of bad practices are operating the food grinder while pier-side, and using soaps
Chapter 16 - Page 468
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
and/or detergents that are NOT considered non-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable.
These types of soaps should only originate from shower and lavatory use, or it could indicate a
permit violation. Medium and large cruise ships are required to maintain records estimating all
discharges of treated graywater into waters subject to the VGP and initial and maintenance
monitoring as required by the permit.
Photo examples of good and bad management practices:
Good practices
Photo 19-1. Use of oil-absorbing pads for bilge water.
Photo 19-2. Properly maintaining equipment.
Bad practices
Photo 19-3. Poor storage of hazardous waste.
Photo 19-4. Continuing to operate without corrective
action when there is a visible oily sheen.
Chapter 16 - Page 469
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
F. REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on vessels.
Abt Associates. (2008). Economic and Benefits Analysis of the Final Vessel General Permit (VGP).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessel_vgp_economicanalysis.pdf
Battelle. (2007). Technical Support for EPA Development of a Permitting Framework to Address
the Vacatur of the NPDES Vessel Exclusion. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141.
Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA. (N.D. Cal., 2005). 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
5373.
Northwest Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal.,
2006).
Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. EPA. (9th Cir., 2008). 537 F.3d 1006.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2011). Guidelines for Coast Guard Evaluations of Compliance with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges
Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels. CG-543 Policy Letter 11-01. Available at:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/lgcncoe/docs/EPA%20VGP.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a). Available at:
https://www. regulations.gov/# IdocumentDeta il;D=EPA-HQ-0 W-2011-0141-0949.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of Vessels Fact Sheet. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessel_vgp_factsheet.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). Proposed VGP: EPA's Response to Public
Comments. Document No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-438.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels
(VGP). Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#IdocumentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-0W-2008-
0055-0436
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2011). Understanding
Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship for
Collaboration on Compliance Assistance, Compliance Monitoring, and Enforcement of Vessel
General Permit requirements on Vessels. EPA Memorandum. Available at:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvc/cvcl/general/vgp/CG_EPA_MOU.pdf
Chapter 16 - Page 470
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP)for Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of Vessels Fact Sheet. Available at:
https://www. regulations.gov/# IdocumentDeta il;D=EPA-HQ-0 W-2011-0141-0950
Chapter 16 - Page 471
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 17 -
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Contents
A. Overview of Pollution Prevention 473
Pollution Prevention Goals 473
Waste Management Hierarchy 473
Pollution Prevention Benefits 475
B. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment Procedures for Industrial Facilities 478
Preparation 479
Interview 480
Facility Site Visit 480
C. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment Procedures For Municipal wastewater
treatment plants 484
D. References 486
List of Tables
Table 17-1. Useful Facility Information to Conduct a Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Assessment 484
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 17-1. Waste Management Hierarchy 477
Exhibit 17-2. Benefits of Pollution Prevention 477
Exhibit 17-3. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment 483
Related Websites
Pollution Prevention (P2) home page: https://www.epa.gov/p2
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC): https://www.epa.gov/p2/pollution-prevention-
resources#ppic
Pollution Prevention Case Studies: https://www.epa.gov/p2/pollution-prevention-case-studies
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange: http://www.p2rx.org/programs/
Chapter 17 - Page 472
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. OVERVIEW OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution prevention is a proactive environmental management approach for minimizing
material and resource losses during production. Pollution prevention addresses all aspects of
production processes from raw material usage and inventory procedures to waste management
and utilities conservation. Management techniques that incorporate pollution prevention
reduce or eliminate the generation of pollutants, wastes, and adverse ecological impacts
through new approaches, material substitutions, and optimizing processes and operating
procedures.
POLLUTION PREVENTION GOALS
The goal of pollution prevention is to reduce pollution by eliminating or reducing waste.
Pollution prevention is a multimedia approach that minimizes or eliminates pollutants released
to land, air, and/or water without shifting pollutants from one medium to another. The
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 defines source reduction as:
...any practice which reduces the amount of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant entering any wastestream or otherwise released into the environment
(including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and any
practice which reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated
with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Pollution prevention, therefore, represents a fundamental shift in approach away from the
conventional reliance on waste treatment/disposal or "end-of-pipe" treatment to the active
investigation of prevention techniques. Facilities can implement pollution prevention by:
• Modifying equipment or technology
• Modifying process or procedure
• Reformulating or redesigning products
• Substituting of raw materials
• Improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, and/or inventory control
WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
A facilities pollution prevention program should eliminate or reduce the generation of
pollutants and wastes at the source by carefully considering material usage, production
processes, and waste management practices. The facility's pollution prevention program should
identify opportunities for reducing the use of hazardous materials and waste generation or
releases, as well as opportunities to protect natural resources by conserving and efficiently
using energy and water.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 includes a Waste Management Hierarchy that describes a
comprehensive waste management program. The hierarchy assigns the highest priority to
source reduction and places a decreasing level of preference on recycling, treatment, and
disposal. To be most effective, a facility's pollution prevention program should focus on
Chapter 17 - Page 473
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
implementing source reduction. Where source reduction cannot be achieved, reuse and
recycling projects should be implemented. If there is no feasible pollution prevention
alternative, treatment and disposal should be used as a last resort. Exhibit 17-1 is a graphic
representation of the waste management hierarchy. Each level of the hierarchy is described
below.
Source Reduction
Source reduction refers to the use of materials, processes, or practices that reduce or eliminate
the quantity and toxicity of wastes at the point of generation. By preventing waste, the need
for costly treatment and disposal is decreased. Source reduction can be achieved by
substituting raw materials improving operating practices and changing processes and
equipment.
• Substituting raw material: Replacing hazardous materials with less hazardous (or less
toxic) alternatives reduces releases to the environment of hazardous materials and
wastes resulting from routine production processes and accidental spills. Examples of
material substitutions include, but are not limited to, 1) substituting soy-based or water-
based ink to replace solvent-based ink for printing, 2) using recycled paper instead of
virgin stock, 3) replacing Styrofoam packing materials with re-usable hard-pack plastic
materials for shipping products, 4) eliminating trichloroethylene as a cleaning agent by
substituting a caustic cleaner such as potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide, and 5)
eliminating Freon® use.
• Improving operating practices: Improved operating practices can reduce waste
generated from poorly developed standard operating procedures, inadequate training,
and inefficient production scheduling. In the past, facilities developed operating
practices that maximized production without considering factors such as raw material
usage, waste disposal costs, and environmental impacts. Examples of improved
operating practices include, but are not limited to, segregating waste, improving
housekeeping, and establishing preventive maintenance, training, and outreach
programs.
• Modifying processes and equipment modifications: In the long run, one of the most
effective source reduction techniques may involve process and equipment
modifications. Changes to processes and equipment present significant opportunities
for source reduction and pollution prevention. Such modifications include using newer
or more efficient equipment or redesigning a process so that less raw material is
required, yet product quality is maintained.
Recycling
While source reduction prevents wastes from being generated, recycling turns byproducts and
wastes into reusable products. Recycling includes such practices as on-site or off-site recycling,
materials exchange or reuse, and raw materials recovery.
• On-site/off-site recycling: Both on-site and off-site recycling can help reduce
dependence on expensive virgin materials by reusing spent materials.
Chapter 17 - Page 474
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Materials exchange or reuse: A materials exchange system maximizes the use of a
facility's excess raw materials and equipment. A system generally consists of a database
for tracking the availability of excess materials by department (or whatever
organizational unit is appropriate). In addition, a materials exchange system may include
a communication link with the facility's supply system to alert stock clerks that excess
items are on hand and should be used prior to purchasing new stock.
• Materials recovery: Some of the byproducts and wastes generated during production
can be recovered and sold as commodities. For example, waste acids that no longer
meet the requirements of a final, critical cleaning process can be used in a secondary
process that does not require the same level of cleanliness. Other examples of materials
recovery as part of waste treatment are discussed below.
Waste Treatment
Unlike source reduction, waste treatment applies to wastes after generation. The goals of
waste treatment technologies are to neutralize the waste, to recover energy or material
resources, to render the waste nonhazardous, or to reduce the volume. Treatment technologies
that enable material to be recovered include ion exchange, reverse osmosis, electrolytic metal
recovery, and electro dialysis. Volume reduction through evaporation is an example of
treatment. Although volume reduction decreases the amount of wastewater, the absolute
quantity of hazardous or toxic waste released to the environment is not reduced. In addition,
equipment for volume reduction requires a capital cost and energy costs.
Waste Disposal
Disposal should be considered only when all other options are exhausted. Disposal is
considered the least favored waste management method because of the associated costs,
liability, and environmental impacts. In addition, a limited number of permitted waste sites are
available for disposing hazardous material, and many of these sites are approaching capacity.
Also, waste transportation may pose hazards. Finally, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with disposing hazardous wastes are an additional burden that can be
avoided through preventive measures, such as source reduction.
POLLUTION PREVENTION BENEFITS
Exhibit 17-2 summarizes the direct benefits of pollution prevention practices for facilities.
Source reduction improves the potential for environmental compliance. Because penalties for
environmental compliance are becoming increasingly severe, compliance is a top priority.
Implementing source reduction measures can also reduce costs associated with waste
management. Costs reductions may be experienced in expenditures for raw materials, waste
disposal, transportation, handling and storage, training, management overhead, and
emergency response. By decreasing the amount of hazardous waste shipped off-site for
disposal, the facility may also reduce the costs associated with tracking and filing paperwork
required for hazardous waste manifests. Future costs, such as remediation activities, can also
be avoided with source reduction activities.
Chapter 17 - Page 475
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
In addition, source reduction will produce positive health and environmental benefits. By
maintaining fewer hazardous or toxic materials on-site, facilities reduce occupational hazards,
and, therefore, improve worker health and safety. Creating a safer workplace may reduce the
need for expensive health and safety protection devices. Also, insurance cost may be lowered.
A safer workplace will also improve employee job satisfaction. Reducing hazardous materials
usage also decreases the volume of toxic substances released to the environment from spills,
leaks, and air emissions.
The indirect benefits of pollution prevention may be equally significant. One indirect benefit is
reduced liability. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) "cradle-to-grave" provisions
stipulate that a generator remains responsible for all environmental damage resulting from its
waste including damage that occurs after disposal. A pollution prevention program can
generate goodwill in the community and workplace, enhance the facility's public image, and
foster environmental awareness among employees.
Chapter 17 - Page 476
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Source Reduction
Environmentally
Friendly Design of
New Products
Product Change
Source Elimination
* Modify Product to
Avoid Solvent Use
* Modify Products to
Extend Coating Life
Recycling
Reuse
Reclamation
Solvent Recycling
Metal Recovery from
a Spent Plating Bath
Treatment
Disposa
• Stabilization
* Neutralization
* Precipitation
* Evaporation
• Incineration
* Scrubbing
* Disposal at a
• Thermal Destruction
of Organic Solvent
* Precipitation of Heavy
Metal from a Waste
Land Disposal
Exhibit 17-1. Waste Management Hierarchy
Significantly reduces the amount of pollution released to the environment.
Improves the potential for environmental and safety compliance.
Improves worker health and safety by reducing occupational hazards.
Provides the flexibility to choose cost-effective and environmentally sound solutions that will
also result in improved efficiency and increased profit margins.
Provides public recognition of a facility's efforts.
Saves capital because of reductions in waste sent for costly treatment and disposal and
because of decreased raw materials and energy usage.
Exhibit 17-2. Benefits of Pollution Prevention
Chapter 17 - Page 477
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES FOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Because the primary objective of a routine National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) compliance inspection is to evaluate the facility's compliance with its NPDES permit
requirements, a pollution prevention assessment incorporated into a compliance assessment
may, by necessity, be limited. Nevertheless, the inspector can use these routine NPDES
compliance inspections to identify pollution prevention options, particularly those options that
would improve compliance. Alternatively, a facility visit may be conducted solely to evaluate
the facility. In this instance, the general procedure for a facility visit is the same as that for any
inspection (e.g., preparation, entry, opening conference, facility tour), but the specific focus is
on identifying pollution prevention opportunities for the facility to investigate. Two reference
documents the inspector may find useful are EPA's Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual (EPA, 1998) and EPA's Facility Pollution Prevention Guide (EPA, 1992a).
These documents contain procedures for conducting a pollution prevention opportunity
assessment. Pollution prevention opportunity assessments have four phases: 1) planning and
organization, 2) assessment, 3) feasibility analysis, and 4) implementation. The four phases are
summarized in Exhibit 17-3.
The inspector cannot perform all the steps in the type of pollution prevention assessment
described in the Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA, 1998) and in the
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide (EPA, 1992a). These documents were developed as guides
for waste generators who want to implement a pollution prevention program. The feasibility
analysis and implementation phases require development of criteria to screen and rank the
options, conduct an in-depth technical assessment of options that can be successfully applied
at that facility, conduct an economic evaluation, and the develop an implementation plan and
schedule, which only the facility can determine. However, the inspector can evaluate whether
the facility has conducted such an assessment and whether there are obvious pollution
prevention opportunities. The inspector may also find useful EPA's 2010-2014 Pollution
Prevention Program Strategic Plan (EPA, 2010), which identifies opportunities for waste
reduction.
It will be impossible, and unnecessary, for the inspector to have in-depth knowledge and
understanding of all production processes and facility activities. However, as part of the entire
pollution prevention assessment, whether during the preparation, interview, or facility site
visit, the inspector should strive to become familiar with the facility layout, equipment and
processes, points of potential waste generation, types of waste generated, and waste handling
and disposal practices. If possible, the inspector should collect sufficient detailed information to
develop a general flow diagram or material balance for each process step. The inspector should
know the source, type, quantity, and concentration of each identified wastestream to identify
data gaps, problem areas, and data conflicts.
As the assessment is conducted, the inspector should keep the pollution prevention principles
in mind:
Chapter 17 - Page 478
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Multimedia focus looking at all environmental media as a unified whole to avoid
transfers from one medium to another; and
• Comprehensive evaluation of the total environmental impacts over the life cycle of the
product, from raw materials through manufacturing (including energy use) to use and
ultimate disposal.
PREPARATION
The inspector should prepare for the assessment by examining information about the
processes, operations, and waste management practices at the facility. Any background
material should be reviewed in the facility's file. If the inspection is planned to focus on
pollution prevention assessment, the inspector should contact the facility to inform plant
officials of this objective. During this initial contact, the inspector should ask for information
that will help identify potential pollution prevention options. Table 17-1 provides a list of useful
information for this assessment.
As the inspector reviews facility information, he or she should develop a list of questions
specific to the facility. The inspector should be seeking, through the facility-specific questions,
information to answer the following general questions:
• What significant wastestreams are generated by the plant? How much waste is
generated?
• Why are these considered "waste"?
• From which processes or operations do these wastestreams originate?
• What is the production rate of each wastestream?
• Which wastes are hazardous and which are not? What makes them hazardous?
• How are the wastes managed at present?
• What are the input materials used that generate the wastestreams of a process or plant
area?
• How efficient is the process? How much input material is:
- Used in a process?
- Released to water or air, or disposed of on land?
- Destroyed or unaccounted for?
• What types of process controls are used to improve process efficiency?
• Are unnecessary wastes generated by mixing otherwise recyclable or recoverable
hazardous wastes with other process wastes?
• What types of housekeeping practices are used to limit the quantity of wastes
generated?
• Has the plant developed a Pollution Prevention Plan or strategy?
Chapter 17 - Page 479
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
There are numerous resources that identify pollution prevention techniques for specific types
of industry, such as the metal finishing industry, the fabricated metal products industry, and the
pharmaceutical industry. This pollution prevention information can be obtained from:
• Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
• Pollution Prevention Case Studies
• Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
INTERVIEW
Just as with a routine NPDES compliance inspection, plant personnel should be interviewed
when the inspector first arrives at the facility. The inspector should target personnel from the
following areas:
• Management
• Environmental waste management
• Process engineering
• Facility maintenance
• Operation and production
• Safety and health
• Research and development
• Quality control
• Purchasing/inventory
• Shipping/receiving
• Storage
From the interviews, the inspector should develop (or verify) a list of all waste minimization
practices already in place. The inspector should also ask plant personnel for the plant's
Pollution Prevention Plan or strategy and any suggested pollution prevention opportunities in
the operations and processes and discuss with the plant personnel any pollution prevention
opportunities that were identified during preparations for the site visit or during the on-site
interviews.
FACILITY SITE VISIT
Again, as with a routine compliance inspection, the inspector should conduct a tour of the
facility with plant personnel after the interview. The same areas of the manufacturing facility,
materials and waste storage, loading and unloading, and treatment system should be reviewed.
At each process area, the plant personnel most knowledgeable about the activity should
describe the process or should answer any questions the inspector may have.
The inspector should make personal observations, seek confirmation of the interpretation of an
activity that is occurring, and investigate any information plant personnel provide that appears
to contradict what is being observed. The inspector should focus on:
Chapter 17 - Page 480
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Loading and unloading operations
• In-plant transfers (raw materials handling)
• Process operations
• Housekeeping practices
• Maintenance activities
• Waste management operations
The inspector should also check for signs of spills or leaks and assess overall cleanliness of the
site. Throughout all the areas visited, the following wastestreams should be evaluated:
• Wastewater
• Air emissions, including stack and fugitive emissions (e.g., detectable odors and fumes)
• Hazardous wastes
• Nonhazardous solid wastes
Each wastestream should be reviewed to:
• Determine whether the wastes are hazardous or nonhazardous
• Determine other physical and chemical characteristics of wastes and emissions
• Determine actual points of generation
• Determine quantities including variations
• Identify all handling, treatment, and storage procedures on-site
Based on activities described above during a facility tour, the inspector should look for pollution
prevention opportunities in the general areas listed below.
• Substituting less hazardous materials such as:
- Using latex or water-based paints, rather than oil-based
- Eliminating organic solvent cleaners and replacing with aqueous cleaners
• Limiting the amount of hazardous materials disposed of by:
- Buying only the amount of material the facility needs
- Using all materials before their expiration date
- Using only the amount of material needed
- Sharing materials or donating extra materials to community organizations
• Using and storing products carefully to prevent:
- Accidents and spills
- Mixtures of incompatible materials that can react, ignite, or explode
• Recycling wastes, such as:
- Used oil
Chapter 17 - Page 481
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Plastics, glass, paper, and metals
- Spent solvents
• Generating less pollution by:
- Automating and improving process controls to optimize production operations
- Allowing products to fully drain process chemicals before rinsing
- Using less toxic materials (e.g., printing inks, dyes)
- Adjusting production schedules to minimize cleanup operations
- Sealing floor drains (permanently or temporarily) to prevent spills
- Segregating wastes to support recycling (e.g., scrap metals, solvents)
• Turning waste products into new materials by:
- Treating and recycling rinse waters
- Recovering metals such as silver from waste materials
- Recycling waste lubricants and coolants
• Using fewer resources by:
- Installing flow restrictors on rinse waters
- Installing high efficiency boilers and furnaces
- Using heat exchangers to heat process water supplies
• Educating employees on the:
- Goals of pollution prevention and waste management
- Procedures to follow for waste disposal and pollution prevention
- Accomplishments for the pollution prevention program being implemented
Before leaving the facility, the inspector should meet with plant personnel. A list of pollution
prevention options identified during the site visit should be prepared and discussed with plant
personnel. Inspectors can discuss a pollution prevention technology or refer the facility
representatives to EPA or state pollution prevention technical assistance offices. However, the
inspector should not recommend specific measures to implement. Nor should the inspector
suggest products or imply that a certain pollution prevention measure will enable the facility to
achieve compliance.
Chapter 17 - Page 482
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The recognized need to minimize waste
1
Planning and Organization
Get management commitment
Set overall assessment program goals
Organize assessment program task force
Assessment or ganization and
commitment to pr oceed
I
Assessment Phase
Collect process and facility data
Prioritize and select assessment targets
Select people for assessment teams
Review data and inspect site
Generate options
Screen and select options for further study
Assessment report of
selected optims
I
Feasibility Analysis Phase
Technical evaluation
Economical evaluation
Select options for implementation
Final repoti, including
recommended options
T
Implementation
Justify projects and obtain funding
Installation (equipment)
Implementation (procedure)
Evaluate performance
Successfully implemented
waste minimization projects
Select new
assessment
targets and
reevaluate
previous
options
Repeat the
process
Exhibit 17-3. Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment
Chapter 17 - Page 483
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 17-1. Useful Facility Information to Conduct
a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment
RAW MATERIALS
INFORMATION
• Product composition
• Material Safety Data Sheets
• Product and raw material inventory and purchasing records
• Operator data logs
• Production schedules and records
MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
INFORMATION
• Process flow diagrams
• Material and heat balances for production
• Manufacturing and pollution control processes
• Operating manuals and process descriptions
• Water usage rates
• Equipment and equipment specifications
• Piping and instrument diagrams
• Sewer layout diagrams
• Facility layout and elevation plans
• Equipment layouts and work flow diagrams
WASTE GENERATION
AND DISPOSAL
INFORMATION
• Environmental permits—air emissions, solid waste, hazardous waste, NPDES,
pretreatment
• RCRA information—manifests, annual reports
• Location of all wastewater, solid and hazardous waste collection, treatment, and
storage points
• Diagram of air, wastewater, and/or hazardous waste treatment units
• Operating manuals for treatment units
• Emissions inventories (air, NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), etc.)
• SARA Title III—Section 313 release reports
• Previous regulatory violations
C. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS
The Municipal Water Pollution Prevention (MWPP) program promotes the application of
pollution prevention concepts of the Pollution Prevention Act to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs). Pollution prevention can reduce the need for substantial capital investment in
new infrastructure, enhance worker safety, improve the usability of sludge, and reduce
operation and maintenance costs. Practices that stress a preventive approach to water
pollution abatement include the following:
Chapter 17 - Page 484
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Mechanisms for routine assessments of the compliance status of POTWs. This
mechanism should include an early warning system based on periodic self-audits and
quantitative techniques for assessing the condition of municipal wastewater treatment
systems.
• Reporting processes on the capability of POTWs to sustain compliance.
• Processes for identifying, implementing, and tracking corrective actions to prevent
pollution and maintain compliance.
• Program that will encourage POTWs to develop pollution prevention projects.
Pollution prevention practices POTWs can adopt could focus in the areas of:
• Improved operation and maintenance.
• Projects that reduce wastewater flows and pollutant loadings.
• Energy and water conservation.
• Timely planning and financing for future needs and economic growth prior to
occurrence of wastewater permit violations.
• Toxicity reductions at the source (industrial pretreatment, commercial and residential
source reduction programs).
• Recycling.
• Proper treatment of wastes.
• Beneficial uses of sludge.
Specific opportunities for optimizing each unit operation to maximize removal efficiency may
include unit modifications to improve performance. For example:
• Clarifiers—Baffle installations and weir modifications to improve hydraulics and limit
short circuiting.
• Aeration basins—Baffles to limit short circuiting. Fine bubble diffusers to improve
aeration. Use of automatic controls to optimize aeration and limit over-aeration.
• Aerobic digester—Recover energy from gas. Insulate digester.
At any time, but especially during upgrading and expansion, the following pollution prevention
projects could be considered:
• Install high efficiency pumps, motors and drives.
• Use biological- rather than chemical-based treatment.
• Install equalization basins to improve efficient operation of downstream units and
minimize the need for oversize units.
• Design plant layout to minimize the need for intermediate pumping.
• Consider ultraviolet or ozone disinfection instead of chlorine.
• Digest residuals rather than heat or chemical treat.
Chapter 17 - Page 485
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Select dewatering equipment not only to maximize solids but to minimize the need for
chemical feeds that increase the volume of residuals.
• Evaluate toxicity of all lubricants, solvents, or cleaners, and replace them with less toxic
alternatives such as citrus-based cleaners wherever possible.
• Reduce infiltration/inflow, which will result in several benefits:
- Reduces plant expansion needs.
- Improves performance efficiency.
- Reduces grit (which increases equipment wear and breakage and is a disposal
problem).
The Industrial Pretreatment Program is one of the best opportunities to achieve pollution
prevention. It represents source control. Pollution prevention programs or projects aimed at
residential and commercial users can also reduce loadings. Such pollution prevention programs
could:
• Encourage water conservation.
• Provide information on compatible or biodegradable cleaners to replace more toxic
cleaners (for example, identify an alternative to chlorine-based "hang-in" type toilet
bowl cleaners).
• Encourage composting instead of garbage grinders.
• Enforce a commercial oil and grease ordinance requiring installation, operation, and
maintenance of grease traps and recovery and recycle of oil and grease.
• Discourage oil and grease dumping.
• Prohibit disposable diaper flushing.
The POTW could also work with water utilities or agencies involved in establishing plumbing
codes to reduce the metals (zinc, copper, and lead) found in drinking water supplies. These
metals may be present because the water is corrosive to the pipes and leaches the metals from
copper tubing, zinc-coated iron and steel pipes, and lead solder. The water utility may also be
using water conditioning chemicals that contain metal salts.
The protocols for conducting a pollution prevention assessment at municipal wastewater
treatment plants are similar to those for an industrial facility. The protocols of a Compliance
Evaluation Inspection (CEI) are also appropriate, except that the focus during the interview, file
review, and site visit is on identifying pollution prevention opportunities.
1), REFERENCES
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on pollution prevention.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1988). Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual. EPA/625/7-88/003.
Chapter 17 - Page 486
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Program.
21W-7002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992a). Facility Pollution Prevention Guide.
EPA/600/R92/088.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992b). RCRA Waste Minimization Action Plan.
EPA/530/R92/020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). 2010-2014 Pollution Prevention (P2) Program
Strategic Plan.
University of Tennessee. (1989). Waste Reduction Assessment and Technology Transfer
(WRATT) Training Manual, 2nd Edition. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee,
Center for Industrial Services.
Chapter 17 - Page 487
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
E. CHECKLISTS
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Industry
Yes No N/A
1. Are there designated material storage areas?
Yes No N/A
2. Are storage areas clean and organized?
Yes No N/A
3. Are containers stored in such a way as to allow for visual inspection for corrosion
and/or leaks?
Yes No N/A
4. Are containers stacked in a way to minimize the chance of tipping, puncturing, or
breaking?
Yes No N/A
5. Are there adequate distances from incompatible chemicals and different types of
chemicals to prevent cross-contamination?
Yes No N/A
6. Is one person responsible for maintaining storage areas?
Yes No N/A
7. Does the layout of the facility result in minimizing traffic through material storage
areas?
Yes No N/A
8. Are stored items protected from damage, contamination, and exposure to
weather?
Yes No N/A
9. Are all storage tanks routinely monitored for leaks?
Yes No N/A
10. Is containment, such as a curb or dike, installed in storage areas to contain
leakage and to minimize the area contaminated by a spill?
A. GENERAL
Yes No N/A
1. Is there a written facility policy regarding pollution prevention?
Yes No N/A
2. Is there a pollution prevention program currently in place?
Yes No N/A
3. Is there a specific person assigned to oversee the success of the program?
Yes No N/A
4. Are there management/employee initiatives and incentive programs related to
pollution prevention?
Yes No N/A
Quality circles (free forums between employees and supervisors) to identify
pollution prevention options?
Yes No N/A
Opportunities for employee suggestions on pollution prevention options?
Yes No N/A
5. Has the facility previously conducted a pollution prevention assessment?
Yes No N/A
6. Has the facility used better cost accounting and cost allocation to provide
incentives to reduce wastes or resource consumption?
Yes No N/A
Is cost accounting performed accurately for all process areas and wastestreams?
Yes No N/A
Are utility costs (energy, water) and waste treatment and disposal costs allocated
to the operations that generate the waste?
B. STORAGE ARE/
Yes No N/A
\S
11. Are leak detection systems installed for underground storage tanks?
Yes No N/A
12. Are floating-roof tanks used f or VOC control?
Yes No N/A
13. Are conservation vents used on fixed roof tanks?
Yes No N/A
14. Does the facility use vapor recovery systems?
Chapter 17 - Page 488
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Industry
C. MATERIALS INVENTORY
Yes No N/A
1. Is there an inventory control system designed to prevent materials from
deteriorating in storage (first in, first out to prevent expiration)?
Yes No N/A
2. Is obsolete raw material returned to the supplier?
Yes No N/A
3. Does the facility try to order smaller containers of infrequently used materials to
avoid disposing of large quantities of unused obsolete materials?
Yes No N/A
4. Has the facility tried to order larger containers of frequently used materials to
reduce the number of small containers that must be cleaned and disposed of?
5. Does the facility use or maintain:
Yes No N/A
Hazardous chemicals inventory lists?
Yes No N/A
Material safety data sheet files?
6. Are all in-plant containers of hazardous chemicals labeled, tagged, or marked
with:
Yes No N/A
Identity of the hazardous chemical(s)?
Yes No N/A
Appropriate hazard warnings?
Yes No N/A
7. Has the facility reexamined its need for each raw material?
Yes No N/A
8. Does the facility have a way to use off-spec material, where possible?
D. MATERIAL HANDLING
Yes No N/A
1. Are raw materials tested for quality before being accepted from suppliers?
Yes No N/A
2. Does the facility follow proper procedures when transferring materials?
Yes No N/A
3. Are expired materials tested for effectiveness before being disposed of?
Yes No N/A
4. Are drums, packages, and containers inspected for damage before being
accepted?
Yes No N/A
5. Are containers properly resealed after use?
Yes No N/A
6. Are containers emptied thoroughly before cleaning or disposal?
7. Does the facility segregate its wastes as much as possible?
Yes No N/A
Solid wastes from aqueous wastes?
Yes No N/A
Nonhazardous from hazardous?
Yes No N/A
Segregated according to type of contaminant?
Yes No N/A
Different types of solid waste to improve recycling/reuse?
Yes No N/A
Different types of solvents, cleaner wastes, and lubricants (e.g., organic solvents
from mineral oils)?
E. PROCESS OPERATIONS
Yes No N/A
1. Are water conservation measures, recycling, and reuse techniques practiced in
processes that use water or generate a wastewater (e.g., cleaning and rinsing
operations)?
Yes No N/A
2. Has material substitution been tried for any hazardous materials used in process?
Chapter 17 - Page 489
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Industry
Yes No N/A
3. Have any techniques been used to increase the life of any process baths?
Yes No N/A
4. Are any wastes being recycled, reused, or recovered in some manner?
Yes No N/A
5. Have any equipment or process modifications been made to increase material
use efficiency and thus reduce material waste generation?
Yes No N/A
6. Do processes employ any detectors to alert personnel of malfunctions that could
produce/generate excessive wastes?
F. SPILLS AND LEAKS
Yes No N/A
1. When a spill occurs, what cleanup methods are employed?
Yes No N/A
2. Would different cleaning methods allow for direct reuse or recycling of the water?
Yes No N/A
3. Are there preventive maintenance procedures designed to reduce incidents of
equipment breakdowns, inefficiency, spills, or leaks?
G. MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION
Yes No N/A
1. Could the facility modify or completely change a given process to use water-
based coolants and fluids instead of oil-based fluids?
H. SOLVENT USE
1. Can solvent cleaning be replaced with less toxic cleaning, such as:
Yes No N/A
A dry process (e.g., bead or sand blasting or other abrasives)?
Yes No N/A
Steam cleaning?
Yes No N/A
Caustic cleaning?
Yes No N/A
2. Are non-chlorinated solvents substituted for chlorinated solvents?
Yes No N/A
3. Are parts wiped to remove oil and dirt prior to solvent cleaning?
Yes No N/A
4. Is the loss of cleaning ability of the solvent monitored before the solvent is
replaced?
Yes No N/A
5. Are chemicals reused or recycled?
Yes No N/A
6. Is an on-site distillation unit for solvent recovery and reuse installed?
Yes No N/A
7. Is solvent use standardized?
1. RINSE WATERS
Yes No N/A
1. Have excessive rinses been evaluated and eliminated?
Yes No N/A
2. Is rinse water reclaimed, pretreated, and reused?
Yes No N/A
3. Are water softeners used only where necessary?
J. TRAINING
Yes No N/A
1. Are there formal personnel training programs on raw material handling, spill
prevention, proper storage techniques, and waste handling procedures?
Yes No N/A
2. Are employees trained in pollution prevention techniques?
Yes No N/A
3. How often is training given and by whom?
Chapter 17 - Page 490
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Industry
K. GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES
Yes No N/A
1. Are plant material balances performed routinely?
Yes No N/A
2. Are they performed separately for each material of concern?
Yes No N/A
3. Are records kept for each waste, documenting sources of origin and eventual
disposal?
Yes No N/A
4. Are operators provided with detailed operating manuals or instruction sets?
Yes No N/A
5. Are all operator job functions well defined?
Yes No N/A
6. Are regularly scheduled training programs offered to operators?
7. Has the facility integrated pollution prevention into supervision and management
by:
Yes No N/A
Closer supervision to improve production efficiency and reduce inadvertent
waste generation (increased opportunity for early detection of mistakes)?
Yes No N/A
Management by Objectives (MBO) with defined and achievable goals for waste
minimization (better coordination among the various parts of an overall
operation)?
Yes No N/A
Scheduling production to minimize cleaning frequency?
8. Has the facility improved production scheduling and planning to include:
Yes No N/A
Maximizing batch sizes?
Yes No N/A
Dedicating equipment to a single product?
Yes No N/A
Altering batch sequencing to minimize cleaning frequency?
Yes No N/A
9. Is corrective maintenance practiced, such as resetting control valves or adjusting
process temperatures, to increase efficiency and to prevent raw material loss
through wastestreams?
Yes No N/A
10. Does the facility forbid operators to bypass interlocks and alarms, or to
significantly alter set points without authorization?
Yes No N/A
11. Are overflow or malfunction alarms installed on tanks and equipment?
L. HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
1. Good housekeeping is the maintenance of a clean, orderly work environment. Doe
s the facility:
Yes No N/A
Maintain neat and orderly storage of chemicals?
Yes No N/A
Promptly remove spillage?
Yes No N/A
Maintain dry and clean floors by use of brooms and/or vacuum cleaners?
Yes No N/A
Provide proper walkways with no containers protruding into walkways?
Yes No N/A
Minimize the accumulation of liquid and solid chemicals on the ground or
floor?
Yes No N/A
Stimulate employee interest in good housekeeping
Checklist derived from Waste Reduction Assessment and Technology Transfer (WRATT) Training Manual,
2nd Edition, University of Tennessee
Chapter 17 - Page 491
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
A. AGE
Yes No N/A
1. What year was the wastewater treatment plant constructed or the last major
expansion to increase the capacity of the plant completed?
Yes No N/A
2. What sewer system improvements does the municipality have under
consideration for the next 10 years?
Yes No N/A
3. What is the expected community and industrial growth?
Yes No N/A
4. Is there any major development (industrial, commercial, or residential)
anticipated in the next 2 to 3 years, such that either the flow or pollutant
loadings could significantly increase?
B. TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
Yes No N/A
1. Compare influent actual flow to influent design flow. When will actual hydraulic
loading exceed design?
Yes No N/A
Has the plant initiated expansion plans and financing sufficiently in advance to
avoid overloading?
Yes No N/A
Has the plant investigated measures for reducing flow?
Yes No N/A
2. Compare conventional pollutant loadings (BOD, TSS, ammonia, phosphorus) to
design loadings. When will actual loadings exceed design?
Yes No N/A
Has the plant initiated expansion plans and financing sufficiently in advance to
avoid overloading?
Yes No N/A
Has the plant investigated measures for reducing loadings?
Yes No N/A
3. Review operating records. How many months were the effluent concentrations or
loadings above 90 percent of the permit limits?
Mo.
BOD?
Mo.
COD?
Mo.
Fecal coliform?
Mo.
Other conventional pollutants limited by permit (ammonia, phosphorus)?
Mo.
Metals or other toxics?
Yes No N/A
4. How many times were permit limits violated (in the last year)?
Yes No N/A
5. What types of violations have occurred in the last 5 years?
Yes No N/A
Are any of a recurrent nature?
What were the causes?
Yes No N/A
Have effective solutions been implemented to prevent future recurrence?
Yes No N/A
6. How many bypasses have occurred?
What were the causes?
Yes No N/A
Have effective solutions been implemented to prevent future recurrence?
Yes No N/A
7. What are the future regulatory or permit requirements that may require
modifications to the plant or its operations?
Chapter 17 - Page 492
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Yes No N/A
Can the facility currently meet any future anticipated water quality standards or
effluent discharge limits?
Yes No N/A
8. Has the plant investigated ways to maximize operating efficiency?
Yes No N/A
9. Has the plant investigated improvements to the chlorination system to decrease
chlorine usage?
Yes No N/A
10. Does the plant have a written preventive maintenance program on major
equipment items and the sewer collection system?
Yes No N/A
11. Does the preventive maintenance program depict frequency of intervals, types of
lubrication, types of repair and other preventive maintenance tasks necessary for
each piece of equipment or each section of the sewer?
C SLUDGE
Yes No N/A 1. Does the plant have sufficient sludge treatment, storage, and disposal capacity?
Yes No N/A
2. What percentage of the methane gas is captured and used?
Has the plant investigated ways to increase the amount of gas captured and used?
Yes No N/A
3. Has the plant investigated ways to decrease the number of dewatering chemicals
used?
D. COLLECTION S
Yes No N/A
YSTEM
1. How many overflows within the collection system have occurred?
Yes No N/A
2. How many backups at any point in the collection system have occurred for any
reason?
What were the causes?
Have effective solutions been implemented to prevent future recurrence?
Yes No N/A
3. Has the plant investigated ways to decrease infiltration/inflow?
E. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Yes No N/A
3. Are these preventive maintenance tasks, as well as equipment and sewer
collection problems being recorded, filed, and reviewed so future maintenance
problems can be assessed properly?
F. MATERIALS USAGE
Yes No N/A
l.Has the plant identified all supplies used in the operation and maintenance of the
plant?
Yes No N/A
2. Has the plant identified materials that could be substituted for less toxic
materials?
Yes No N/A
3. Does the plant reuse or recycle any materials used?
Yes No N/A
4. Has the plant investigated ways to reduce chemical usage without compromising
preventive maintenance or treatment?
G. PERSONNEL RESOURCES
Yes No N/A
1. Review personnel resources, training, and certifications.
Yes No N/A
Are there sufficient numbers?
Chapter 17 - Page 493
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Pollution Prevention Checklist for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Yes No N/A
Do all have appropriate certifications and periodic training?
Yes No N/A
Do all personnel certifications meet or exceed required levels?
Yes No N/A
How many are below the required level?
Yes No N/A
Is staffing level equal to or does it exceed O&M Manual recommendations?
Yes No N/A
2 What percentage of the wastewater budget is dedicated for training?
H. FINANCIAL
Yes No N/A
1. Are the funds for the plant separate from other municipal funds?
Yes No N/A
2. Are funds sufficient for adequate operations?
Yes No N/A
3. Are funds sufficient for adequate preventive maintenance?
Yes No N/A
4. Are funds available for necessary improvements, expansion?
Yes No N/A
5. Is there a capital improvement fund?
Yes No N/A
6. Is the equipment replacement fund in a segregated account?
Yes No N/A
7. What financial resources are available to pay for improvements/expansion/
reconstruction?
1. MUNICIPAL POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECTS
Yes No N/A 1. Does the plant have a pollution prevention program or strategy?
Yes No N/A
2. Has the plant conducted a self-audit on the adequacy of its maintenance,
operation, funding, and operator training?
Yes No N/A
3. Does the pretreatment program include a pollution prevention component or
specific pollution prevention projects?
Yes No N/A
4. Does the municipality have any pollution prevention projects aimed at reducing
toxic/hazardous waste discharges, conventional loadings, or flow (e.g., water
conservation) from:
Yes No N/A
Households?
Yes No N/A
Commercial businesses?
Yes No N/A
Industries?
Chapter 17 - Page 494
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 18 -
MULTIMEDIA CONCERNS
Contents
A. Introduction 496
B. Overview of the Multimedia Approach to Inspections 496
C. Multimedia Concerns at NPDES Facilities and the Multimedia Screening Program 498
Hazardous Waste 498
Hazardous Waste Cleanup Actions Under RCRA/CERCLA 499
Nonhazardous Sludge 499
Air 500
Multimedia Screening 500
D. NPDES Inspectors and Multimedia Inspections 501
Description of a Multimedia Inspection 501
The NPDES Inspector's Role in a Multimedia Inspection 502
E. References 503
Associated Appendices
AQ. Media-Specific Inspection Components
AR. National Multimedia Screening Inspection Worksheet
Chapter 18 - Page 495
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is intended as a guide for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
inspectors who conduct single media and/or multimedia compliance inspections. Inspections
help determine a facility's status of compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and permits
for one media or multimedia. Specifically, multimedia compliance investigations determine a
facility's compliance status in more than one media. NPDES inspectors should be familiar with
multiple regulatory programs in order to identify other potential environmental violations
during a multimedia inspection. Additionally, the inspector should be able to identify possible
media-related concerns on inspections that are not necessarily targeted towards multimedia
compliance.
This chapter and Appendix AQ, "Media-Specific Inspection Components," include a significant
amount of material drawn directly from the National Enforcement Investigations Center's
(NEIC's) Multimedia Investigation Manual (EPA, 1992) and EPA's Process-Based Inspections
Guide (EPA, 1997). NPDES inspectors participating in multimedia inspections should refer to
these documents for further guidance.
Additional training available for each media is listed in the EPA Order 3500.1 Program-Specific
Training Requirements, which is included as Appendix A.
APPROACH TO INSPECTIONS
Most inspections can be grouped into four categories of increasing complexity, moving from
Category A (program-specific compliance inspections) to Category D (complex multimedia
investigations) depending upon the complexity of the facility and the objectives of the
investigation. The four general categories of investigations are described below:
Category A: Program-specific compliance inspections conducted by one or more inspectors.
The objective is to determine facility compliance status for regulations specific to
a single program, such as NPDES program requirements.
Category B: Program-specific compliance inspections conducted by one or more inspectors in
which the inspector(s) screen for and report on obvious, key indicators of
possible noncompliance in multiple program areas. For example, an inspection
may be aimed at determining compliance with NPDES program requirements,
but screening for indicators of possible noncompliance for both NPDES and
FIFRA requirements is performed.
Category C: Several concurrent and coordinated program-specific compliance investigations
conducted by a team of investigators representing two or more environmental
and/or statutory program offices. The team, which is headed by a team leader,
conducts a detailed compliance evaluation for each of the target programs.
Category C inspections entail a more detailed compliance evaluation of each
Chapter 18 - Page 496
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
target program than the general screening-level evaluation performed in a
Category B inspection. The objective is to determine compliance for several
targeted program-specific areas. Reports on obvious, key indicators of possible
noncompliance in other environmental program areas are also made.
Category D: Comprehensive facility multimedia evaluations that not only address compliance
in targeted program-specific regulations, but also try to identify environmental
problems that might otherwise be overlooked. The initial focus is normally on
facility processes to identify potentially regulated activities (e.g., new chemical
manufacturing from raw material management through final manufacturing and
processing) and byproducts/wastestreams generated, especially those that may
not have been accurately reported to the regulators. When potentially regulated
activities or wastestreams are identified, a compliance evaluation is made with
respect to applicable requirements and subsequent compliance status. Special
attention is often given to pollutants that "change media" (such as air pollutants
that are scrubbed into wastewaters).
The investigation team, headed by a team leader, comprises staff thoroughly
trained in different program areas. The on-site investigation is conducted during
one or more site visits and involves intense concurrent program-specific
compliance evaluations, often by the same cross-trained personnel.
Category D multimedia investigations are thorough and, consequently, resource
intensive. They are appropriate for intermediate-to-large, complex facilities that
are subject to a variety of environmental laws. Compliance determinations are
made for several program-specific areas, and reports on possible noncompliance
are prepared, based on the evaluation of the facility's activities and
wastestreams
Generally, all investigations will include pre-inspection planning, use of a project plan, sampling,
inspection procedures, and a final report. The major difference will be in the number of
different regulations addressed during Categories C and D investigations.
The multimedia approach to investigations has advantages over program-specific inspections.
Multimedia inspections provide:
• A more comprehensive assessment of a facility's compliance status.
• Improved leveraging of compliance monitoring and enforcement resources.
• The ability to respond more effectively to cross-media complaints, issues, or needs and
to develop a better understanding of cross-media problems and issues, such as waste
minimization.
• The ability to conserve resources and yield more thorough results than numerous single
media investigations.
Chapter 18 - Page 497
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• A higher probability of identifying cross-media issues, such as pollutants that can be
"lost" as they change media.
• The opportunity to identify weaknesses in a facility's Environmental Management
Systems.
• Larger facility impact, which may enhance deterrent effect on facility corporate
management.
The success of a multimedia investigation program is contingent upon a good managerial
system and the support of upper management. Since these investigations will often be
conducted at larger facilities, adequate resources (time and personnel) must be provided. Good
communication among all team members during the planning phase is essential to define the
scope of the inspection, as well as each team member's role. Communications could also
include state officials since state inspectors might also participate as team members. Because
of the extent of the state's knowledge of the facility and its problems, state involvement is
often critical to the success of the investigation. Similarly, coordination with other federal or
local agencies needs to be addressed, as necessary.
_ MUiniMHl)lA^:()NC:imNS^Al;NPl)HSl;A(:iLrriHS
AND THE MULTIMEDIA SCREENING PROGRAM
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Many NPDES-regulated facilities are also subject to requirements of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous wastes. NPDES permit writers and inspectors may learn whether the
facility conducts RCRA regulated activities, and the nature of those activities, from state or EPA
RCRA authorities, data platforms such as EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO), or while discussing facility industrial processes during the initial stages of a compliance
investigation.
Industrial facilities can use or generate solid, liquid, or gaseous hazardous waste. These wastes
may be generated from raw materials, off-specification products, or residuals or emissions from
the process operations. In addition, waste oils used by process equipment, solvents used in
cleaning operations, or sludges from treatment of process wastewaters can be hazardous
wastes.
RCRA defers the control of hazardous wastes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) when those wastes
are either directly discharged to surface waters under an NPDES permit (the direct discharge
exclusion) or indirectly discharged to a wastewater treatment plant (the domestic sewage
exclusion). Industrial facilities may use the direct discharge and domestic sewage exclusions as
preferred disposal methods. Since many of the 126 priority pollutants listed in the CWA would
be considered hazardous waste constituents under RCRA, the discharge of these pollutants
should concern the inspectors and operators of wastewater treatment plants. Potential RCRA
issues to consider in a NPDES inspection include:
Chapter 18 - Page 498
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Hazardous wastes may pass through to surface waters unless incidentally removed in
sludge, degraded, or "lost" through volatilization or exfiltration during the wastewater
collection and treatment process.
• The Universal Treatment Standards under the Land Disposal Restrictions help determine
when a hazardous waste has been treated sufficiently for land disposal.
• The RCRA waste may inhibit or reduce the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment
processes potentially resulting in lower quality effluent discharges.
• RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes introduced into wastewater treatment facilities with
surface impoundments could cause groundwater contamination issues.
• Sludges resulting from the treatment of a hazardous waste may become a regulated
waste under RCRA.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) receiving hazardous wastes by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipeline are subject to RCRA permit by rule requirements. If the material does not
pass through a sewer system prior to arriving at a POTW, it is deemed to be a solid waste and, if
appropriate, a hazardous waste. Consequently, POTWs that manage wastes that have not
passed through the sewer system and mixed with domestic sewage would be subject to all
applicable hazardous waste regulations. Included among these requirements is the provision
that corrective action must be taken to remedy any contamination that may have resulted from
a release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from solid waste management units,
such as surface impoundments, to the environment. For example, if a POTW that is subject to
these RCRA requirements contaminates groundwater through leaching or exfiltration, the
permittee might be required to investigate the nature and extent of those releases and, where
appropriate, implement corrective measures.
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP ACTIONS UNDER RCRA/CERCLA
Another source of contaminated wastewater is hazardous waste cleanup actions. Under RCRA
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
EPA, states, and private parties remediate contaminated sites. Much of the waste found at
these sites is in liquid form, either as leachate or contaminated groundwater. The treatment of
contaminated wastewaters from these sources will likely generate complex mixtures, requiring
careful examination of their composition to determine appropriate treatment and disposal
techniques.
NONHAZARDOUS SLUDGE
Wastewater treatment generates nonhazardous sludges. Several statutes and regulations,
including the CWA, are charged with managing these nonhazardous sludges. NPDES and state
permits include disposal limitations for municipal sewage sludge as specified in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 (see Chapter 10 for detailed information on the 40
CFR Part 503 requirements). Many states already impose such requirements. NPDES inspectors
should become familiar with state sewage sludge requirements and federal sewage sludge
management and disposal requirements under the CWA and those imposed by other statutes
Chapter 18 - Page 499
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
and regulations, particularly RCRA and the Clean Air Act (CAA). For example, the CAA controls
air emissions from co-incinerating municipal sewage sludge with other wastes. Municipal
sewage sludge that is co-disposed with other waste in a municipal solid waste landfill is
regulated by 40 CFR Part 258. Industrial sludges are regulated by 40 CFR Part 257 if land applied
and by 40 CFR Part 258 if disposed of in a nonhazardous landfill.
AIR
Air emissions from wastewater treatment units may be subject to CAA regulations. For some
industries (e.g., synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI), petroleum
refineries), EPA has developed CAA regulations that limit the amount of volatile hazardous air
pollutants that can be contained in process wastewaters. The purpose of these regulations is to
minimize the amount of pollutants transferred from wastewater to the atmosphere through
volatilization. In general, facilities are required to treat wastewater streams that contain
volatile hazardous air pollutants before the streams are exposed to the atmosphere. It is
important to be aware of what chemical constituents are in the wastewater and what impact
this may have on a facility's compliance with CAA regulations. Air emissions from authorized
RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) are regulated under RCRA. As a result,
wastewater treatment facilities at RCRA TSDFs are now being investigated by RCRA program
personnel. In addition, EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires certain wastewater
treatment plants to submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reports. The GHG
Reporting Program impacts suppliers of certain products that would result in GHG emissions if
released, combusted or oxidized; direct emitting source categories; and facilities that inject CO2
underground for geologic sequestration or any purpose other than geologic sequestration.
Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHGs are required to submit annual
reports to EPA. Information about the GHG Reporting Program and covered reporters can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghg-reporters.
Additionally, it is important to investigate use of air pollution control devices or other waste
management activities that remove pollutants from one media (such as air) but generate a
wastewater stream. These wastewaters may not have been accurately reported in CWA permit
applications and may not be properly managed.
MULTIMEDIA SCREENING
Regions and states are encouraged to incorporate multimedia screening into as many single
media inspections as possible (i.e., conduct Category B inspections in lieu of Category A
inspections). Obtaining multimedia screening information earlier in the process will help
leverage inspection resources and ensure that all noncompliance issues are included in any
facility-specific compliance status evaluation strategy. The compliance inspector will use a
multimedia screening checklist as a guide for making and recording observations and pertinent
information.
The Environmental Services Division Field Branch Chiefs and NEIC have led the development
and implementation of EPA's multimedia inspection program, including screening inspections.
The National Multimedia Screening Inspection Worksheet, dated May 12,1993, was developed
Chapter 18 - Page 500
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
as a general guideline by a regional work group led by Region 3. A copy of this worksheet is
included in Appendix AR, "National Multimedia Screening Inspection Worksheet." Regions and
states have adapted and customized checklists such as this for their own use.
1), NPDES INSPECTORS AND MULTIMEDIA INSPECTIONS
DESCRIPTION OF A MULTIMEDIA INSPECTION
The strategy developed for multimedia inspections usually involves prioritizing the processes
and waste management activities, followed by systematically moving from the beginning to the
end of a process with emphasis on regulated wastestream generation and final wastestream
management and disposition. The strategy should be somewhat flexible so that "mid-course
corrections" can be made.
The compliance evaluations for each media should be coordinated among all the investigators
and scheduled to make the most effective use of the inspector's on-site time and facility
contact resources. This schedule should provide an approximate schedule for each media
investigator to review documents, interview facility personnel, conduct on-site observations,
and conduct sampling as appropriate. This schedule must be flexible and may be modified
throughout the on-site investigation to effectively use the limited available time. Daily meetings
between team members to discuss progress and needs are recommended to help modify this
schedule to meet the team and the facility personnel needs. Personnel availability and other
logistical factors may result in a combining of compliance evaluations. RCRA issues may be
evaluated concurrently with NDPES requirements because of the close relationship between
process evaluations and wastewater generation and disposal requirements. Compliance with
regulatory programs that principally involve records reviews, such as the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), and CAA
could be scheduled later in the inspection, as time permits.
The strategy for process and compliance evaluations should be developed by the inspection
team coordinator and discussed with inspection team members. This will serve as the basis for
explaining inspection activities and scheduling to the company during the opening conference.
The strategy should include checklists that address potential process wastestreams to be
examined and help identify media-specific compliance issues. Checklists can be a vital
component of a compliance investigation to help ensure that an investigator does not overlook
anything important. Checklists serve as a reminder of what needs to be asked or examined and
provide the basic regulatory requirements. However, checklists should not be a replacement for
observations, curiosity, and common sense.
In larger facilities, multiple site visits coordinated by the team leader may be necessary and
desirable for completing the inspection and following up on issues identified during earlier site
visits. This approach can lead to a better overall site compliance determination inspection
because of the opportunity to thoroughly review the information obtained during the
inspection upon return to the office, refine the inspection strategy to fill in the gaps and resolve
questions, and conduct a subsequent site visit to obtain the required information.
Chapter 18 - Page 501
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
THE NPDES INSPECTOR'S ROLE IN A MULTIMEDIA INSPECTION
Each multimedia investigation team member should bring special program expertise and
experience and must be trained in conducting a field investigation, including sampling. Most of
the investigators on the team, including the team leader, should be current field investigators
who already possess most of the necessary skills and qualifications. EPA Order 3500.1 sets forth
specific training requirements for any EPA investigator who is leading a single media
investigation. These training requirements include both general inspection procedures and
media-specific procedures. While an individual leading a multimedia investigation may not have
had the media-specific training for each media covered during that multimedia investigation,
the team leader should have completed media-specific training for at least two of the media. At
least one team member should be trained in each area that is to be addressed in the
multimedia inspection.
The team leader has the overall responsibility for the successful completion of the multimedia
investigation. In addition, other investigators may be designated as leads for each of the
specific media/programs that will be addressed. These individuals may work alone or have one
or more inspectors/samplers as assistants, depending on workload and objectives. However, all
investigation team members should report directly to, and be accountable to, the team leader.
The following are some of the more important skills and qualifications that are necessary for
team members:
• Ability to work effectively as a member of a diverse team.
• Knowledge of the EPA's policies and procedures regarding inspection authority, entry
procedures/problems, enforcement actions, legal issues, and safety.
• Thorough understanding of sampling equipment; quality assurance (QA) requirements
for sample collection, identification, and preservation; and chain-of-custody procedures.
• Knowledge of manufacturing/waste producing processes, pollution control technology,
principles of waste management, flow measurement theory and procedures, and waste
monitoring techniques/equipment.
• Investigation skills including the ability to gather evidence through good interviewing
techniques and astute observations.
• Ability to convey information gathered during the inspection into clear, understandable
investigation reports.
• Up-to-date experience in conducting compliance inspections.
• Good communication skills.
• Basic understanding of the procedures of obtaining administrative warrants, including
preparation of affidavits, technical content of the warrant application, and warrant and
procedures for serving a warrant.
Chapter 18 - Page 502
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• At least one team member should have considerable knowledge of laboratory standard
operating procedures (SOPs), analytical test methods, and QA requirements, if a
laboratory evaluation is to be conducted.
Investigators should conduct themselves in a professional manner and maintain credibility. A
cooperative spirit should be cultivated within the inspection team and with facility
representatives, including conducting on-site activities during normal working hours of the
facility, as much as possible. Inspection team members should discuss their
observations/findings relating to one or more programs with each other. The investigation
team should also implement appropriate documentation procedures as described in Chapter 2.
Investigators must ensure that important documents (e.g., project plan, safety plan, and
logbooks) are not left unattended at the facility and sensitive discussions should not take place
in front of facility personnel or on company telephones.
_ ______
The following is a list of resources providing additional information on multimedia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Multimedia Investigation Manual. EPA-330/9-
89-003-R. National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Process-Based Investigations Guide. EPA-330/9-
97-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Best Practices for NPDES Permit Writers and
Pretreatment Coordinators to Address Toxic and Hazardous Chemical Discharges to POTWs.
EPA-830-B-16-001.
Chapter 18 - Page 503
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Chapter 18 - Page 504
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CHAPTER 19 -
APPEARING AS A WITNESS
Contents
A. Introduction 506
B. Pre-Testimony Matters 506
Preparation 506
Legal Etiquette, Appearance, and Demeanor 507
C. Giving Testimony 508
General Considerations 508
Pre-Trial Testimony: Depositions 509
Trial Testimony: Direct Examination 509
Trial Testimony: Cross-Examination 510
D. Special Considerations 511
Technical Testimony 511
Expert Witness 512
Chapter 19 - Page 505
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. INTRODUCTION
Inspectors perform a vital role throughout the regulatory enforcement process. An
enforcement action begins with the inspector collecting and documenting on-site evidence.
This chapter deals with the inspector's responsibility to present evidence in formal legal
proceedings.
Due in large part to the high-quality work that inspectors produce, EPA files strong cases.
Nearly all these cases result in out-of-court settlements that will not usually require the
inspector's testimony. Of the cases that do not settle, a substantial majority of the legal actions
take place in the EPA administrative law system rather than in federal courts. Major differences
distinguish administrative from federal courts, such as rapid processing and the absence of a
jury. Despite the differences between these two legal proceedings, the inspector's role as a
witness will remain predominantly the same.
Under most circumstances an inspector will be called as a "fact witness." A fact witness
describes personal knowledge obtained through one of the five senses. Throughout the
enforcement process, everything an inspector hears, sees, samples, or records may become
evidence about which he or she may be questioned. Many cases are tried years after the field
and laboratory activities have been conducted. Thus, the inspection report and field notebook
should be sufficiently detailed and legible to allow the inspector to reconstruct the inspection
"on the record."
B. PRE-TESTIMONY MATTERS
PREPARATION
Preparation is the key to giving accurate and effective testimony. Successful preparation
requires a substantial time commitment. Attorneys and witnesses work together in two types
of preparation: factual and procedural.
The inspector will complete most of the factual preparation by writing the inspection report as
described in this manual. The witness and the attorney will meet to discuss details from this
report. Other items should also be discussed, including the field notebook, photographs, and
the inspector's qualifications. Qualifications include the inspector's educational degree,
professional accreditations, inspector training as required by EPA Order 3500.1, and on the job
experience. The inspector's qualifications must never be exaggerated. Even a small
exaggeration may cause the inspector's testimony to lack credibility.
The inspector should inform the EPA attorney of any problems, questions, or concerns
regarding the case as early as possible. An example of one such concern is the confidential
business information (CBI) procedures inspectors must adhere to. CBI procedures that bind
inspectors during inspections also have implications for the legal proceeding.
The attorney has primary responsibility over procedural preparation, which includes assembling
the facts for presentation in a formal legal setting. In addition to one-on-one preparation, the
Chapter 19 - Page 506
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
attorney may consider whether the inspector should participate in a mock trial or visit a hearing
to observe other witnesses' testimony. During one-on-one preparation, the attorney and the
inspector should discuss:
• Times and dates that require the inspector's attendance
• Legal etiquette and procedure
• General legal framework of the case
• Significance of the inspector's testimony in this framework
• Probable areas of questioning, including direct and cross-examination
• What documents, if any, will be used by the inspector during testimony
Before giving testimony, the witness should review inspection documents, his or her
professional qualifications, and information provided by the attorney. This review should be
repeated until the witness has thoroughly refreshed himself of the details of the facts relating
to the case. Testimony should appear genuine, not contrived as if a script were being followed.
Additionally, the attorney should prepare the witness as if he is testifying in court before the
witness testifies in court. The witness may ask the attorney to prepare a mock trial to better
understand and be comfortable with the process before the actual trial.
An inspector may be subpoenaed to give testimony by the opposing attorney or even by the
EPA attorney. A subpoena is a mandatory Court Order to appear in court if an inspector is
subpoenaed, the appropriate EPA attorney should be contacted immediately. Time will be short
to prepare to give testimony or to respond to the subpoena.
LEGAL ETIQUETTE, APPEARANCE, AND DEMEANOR
A witness's conduct should reflect the solemn nature of the administrative or judicial
proceeding. To act in accordance with required legal etiquette, a witness should:
• Dress conservatively following the advice of the EPA attorney.
• Arrive early and be available immediately when called to testify.
• Address the judge as "your honor."
• Treat an administrative proceeding as seriously as a federal court trial.
A witness should not:
• Whisper, talk, or make jokes in the hearing room. If necessary, a note may be passed.
• Bring magazines or newspapers into the hearing room.
• Discuss the case within earshot of anyone but the EPA attorney.
Posture, speech, appearance and attitude influence a witness's credibility. An inspector is a
professional who collects, preserves, and presents evidence. To convey a professional
demeanor, an inspector should:
Chapter 19 - Page 507
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Respectfully respond to questions posed by the opposing attorney on cross-
examination.
• Remain natural and animated, but not impatient or overly anxious to testify.
• Minimize nervous tendencies.
• Remain calm.
• Refrain from showing hostility toward the opposing counsel, the specific defendant, or
the regulated community as a whole.
_ G1V1NGTKST1M0NY
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A witness gives testimony to create a legal record of the facts. Before giving testimony, a
witness will take an oath that he or she will tell the truth. Failure to tell the truth is actionable
as perjury. A witness may give pre-trial testimony in a deposition or trial testimony under direct
examination or cross-examination.
To give effective testimony, a witness should 1) listen, 2) pause, and then 3) answer if possible.
Listening carefully to the wording and implications of an attorney's questions requires
significant effort. If the witness does not understand the question, he or she should stop to
think, ask to have the question repeated, or ask to have the questions clarified or explained.
A witness should pause before answering. Pausing provides time to think, makes the response
more considered and deliberate, and gives the attorney time to object if necessary. When
pausing, the witness should not use words such as "um." These types of words may incorrectly
indicate hesitation when later read from the written record.
When answering, a witness should:
• Reply with a "Yes" or "No" when appropriate.
• Speak in complete sentences when answering more fully.
• Be as descriptive as possible in referring to exhibits or photographs. For example, "In the
upper right hand corner, we see..rather than "Here, we see..
• Stop immediately if the judge or either of the lawyers begins to speak.
• Avoid memorizing answers to potential questions.
• Never manipulate an answer to benefit one side.
A witness's credibility is defined as the degree of confidence that the judge or jury gives to the
witness's testimony. The opposing attorney will try to "impeach" a witness's credibility by
suggesting the following: bias, inaccuracy, inability to recollect, false testimony, or even
corruption. To minimize the opposing attorney's efforts to discredit the witness's testimony,
the witness should:
• Always tell the truth.
• Answer only the question asked, without volunteering additional information.
Chapter 19 - Page 508
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Explain answers fully. If the opposing attorney does not allow a full explanation, the EPA
attorney can choose to give the witness an opportunity to explain the answer fully on
redirect examination.
• Answer within the limits of the facts.
• Don't hesitate to say, "I don't know," or "I don't remember," if that is the case.
• Correct any mistakes in the testimony as soon as mistakes are identified.
• Carefully identify estimates.
• Never exaggerate.
• Never guess.
• Avoid absolutes, like "I always..or "I never..."
PRE-TRIAL TESTIMONY: DEPOSITIONS
In a federal court trial, an inspector may be subpoenaed to give a deposition, which is pre-trial
questioning under oath by the opposing attorney. Depositions are not often conducted in
administrative hearings. Participants include the attorneys for each side, a court reporter, and
the witness. Most importantly, a judge will have no role in deposition testimony unless one side
abuses the process and the other side seeks relief.
The attorney may use a deposition to "discover" information or to contradict a witness's
testimony at trial. In most cases, deposition testimony cannot be used as a substitute for live
testimony. To properly prepare for and give deposition testimony, an inspector should:
• Read the notice of deposition.
• Consult with the EPA attorney to determine what preparation and review of
documentation will be necessary.
• Realize that he or she is not "off the record" until completely away from the deposition
setting.
• Request a break whenever needed.
After the deposition is transcribed, the witness can read it to make any appropriate corrections.
Small errors always exist, but some transcripts contain absolute disasters. Errors in technical
details, such as numbers and units, can have a large impact. A witness should never waive the
right to read and sign the finished deposition.
TRIAL TESTIMONY: DIRECT EXAMINATION
The EPA attorney will question the inspector during direct examination to put the facts known
by the inspector on the record in a well-organized and logical manner.
A good direct examination leads the inspector through his or her entire testimony using a
dialogue of short questions and answers. The attorney is responsible for asking appropriate
questions in the correct order and ensuring that nothing important is omitted. The witness is
only responsible for answering the attorney's questions completely and truthfully.
Chapter 19 - Page 509
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
To avoid legally objectionable or tactically unwise remarks, the witness should trust the EPA
attorney's final decision concerning what questions to ask at the hearing. The attorney's
reasoning behind the questioning may be limited, but the witness should trust that the attorney
is asking the questions necessary to convey the story behind the violations. If the inspector has
forgotten a fact, the attorney may refresh the inspector's recollection with documents, such as
the inspection report. The EPA attorney might also ask, "Is there anything else?" to signal to the
inspector that something has been left out.
Redirect examination is a round of questioning only concerning issues raised during cross-
examination. Redirect will give the EPA attorney an opportunity to reduce any damage done to
the credibility of the inspector's testimony during cross-examination.
TRIAL TESTIMONY: CROSS-EXAMINATION
Cross-examination, questioning by the opposing attorney, will subject the witness to a more
difficult interrogation than direct examination. The opposing attorney will try to cast doubt on
the credibility of the witness's testimony. Many witnesses fear counsel techniques such as
leading questioning and twisting interpretation. The EPA attorney will try to protect the witness
from abusive uses of these techniques.
The witness can also protect the credibility of his or her testimony by 1) answering briefly, 2)
answering accurately, and 3) remaining calm. Answering briefly consists of being responsive to
the question, but not volunteering extra information. Avoid rambling, even if the opposing
counsel remains silent.
In addition to the recommendations in the section "Giving Testimony," answering accurately
requires listening carefully for the following types of questions:
• Questions that inaccurately paraphrase the witness's previous testimony. The error
should be corrected or the previous answer restated in full.
• Hypothetical questions or questions requiring a "Yes" or "No" answer. If these questions
may compel a misleading or incomplete answer, the witness should explain the answer
fully at that time or later during redirect if cut short by the opposing attorney.
• Two-part questions. The inspector should ask the attorney to restate the question or
carefully answer each part separately.
Even when a witness's truthfulness, occupational competence, or professional conclusions are
challenged, he or she should remain calm. An angry, sarcastic, or argumentative answer is
inconsistent with the inspector's role as a neutral government witness. Remaining calm will add
credibility to the inspector's testimony. Becoming familiar with the process, including
participation in a mock trial can help reduce the stress of cross-examination.
Chapter 19 - Page 510
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
D. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
TECHNICAL TESTIMONY
An inspector frequently presents technical facts. The inspector must balance the need to be
technically accurate with the need to reduce scientific issues to simple terms and concepts.
The first barrier to communicating technical information is the use of jargon. The inspector
should prepare carefully to simplify his or her language without over-simplifying the scientific
concepts. The inspector should:
• Speak as clearly as possible. The court reporter may have difficulty recognizing numbers
and unfamiliar technical terms.
• Ask your attorney to provide a glossary of technical terms, including acronyms, to the
court reporter.
• Review the meaning of frequently used acronyms, such as explaining that "OECA" is an
acronym for "the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance."
Even after the witness explains the definitions of the technical language, the underlying
concepts may still be difficult to understand. To teach the necessary technical concepts, the
inspector and attorney should consider using:
• Short answers in a logical progression of questions
• Well-paced questioning to avoid information overload
• Diagrams and pictures
• Appropriate analogies
Finally, the inspector should not try to outdo the opposing attorney on technical issues. Not
only may the inspector confuse the judge or jury in the process, but also a well-prepared
attorney will have thoroughly studied the subject before trial and will have a large advantage in
legal debate. Inspectors should walk the judge or jury through a technical analysis using plain
language and help them understand why EPA needs to take a particular action to protect public
health or collect economic benefit to discourage further violations.
To successfully answer questions regarding technical information, an inspector should:
• Examine questions and answers for assumptions and exceptions.
• Look for inaccurate paraphrasing of the inspector's previous testimony and politely
correct them. An opposing attorney may try to restate your testimony with an
inaccurate perspective to benefit the defendant.
• Always identify estimates.
• Use references in cases of complicated details. For example, the inspection report could
be consulted before testifying about the characteristics of a specific sample.
Chapter 19 - Page 511
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EXPERT WITNESS
Expert witnesses give opinions on the record. An expert witness has technical or other
specialized knowledge that helps the judge or jury better understand the case. To prove a
witness' expertise, his or her qualifications are introduced by one side and cross-examined by
the other side. Only those opinions that the witness is qualified to express through special
training or expertise will be admissible.
An expert is not necessarily someone from outside the agency with particular academic or
research credentials. Due to the inspector's professional expertise, he or she might be asked
specific questions that require an opinion or might even be called as an expert witness. The EPA
attorney will object if the opposing counsel asks inappropriate questions and will decide
whether to use the inspector as an expert witness. The inspector should stay carefully within
his or her limits of expertise and knowledge whenever asked a question requiring an opinion.
Chapter 19 - Page 512
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix A -
EPA Order 3500.1, Training and Development for
Individuals who lead Compliance
Inspections/Field Investigations
Appendix A - Page 513
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
»EFA
ORDER
Classification No.: 3500.1
Approval Date: 06/19/2014
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR EPA PERSONNEL WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO
CONDUCT CIVIL COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS/FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND EPA
INSPECTOR SUPERVISORS
1. PURPOSE. This order establishes minimum training requirements for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency employees to obtain and maintain the EPA
authorization to conduct civil compliance inspections/field investigations or collect
compliance samples under federal environmental statutes. It also addresses the
inclusion of certain requirements in agency administered contracts and Senior
Environmental Employment Program cooperative agreements if individuals are to be
authorized to conduct inspections on behalf of the agency. This order also requires that
first-line supervisors of compliance inspectors/field investigators complete minimum
training. Finally, Item 3 of this order references state and tribal inspector training and
credential issuance requirements.
2. POLICY. Prior to conducting environmental compliance inspections/field investigations,
individuals must complete training as required by Item 4 of this order; in addition, the
decision as to whether it is appropriate to issue a credential to the individual resides
with the individual's supervisor, and is based on the supervisor's assessment of the
employee's ability to conduct inspections and represent the agency. Supervisors of
compliance inspectors/field investigators and compliance sampling specialists must
complete and document completion of training requirements, even if they do not
receive a credential or conduct compliance inspections/field investigations.
3. APPLICABILITY. This order applies to all agency personnel who are authorized or seeking
authorization to conduct civil compliance inspections/field investigations or to collect
compliance samples under any of the agency's statutes and their supervisors; in
addition, the order requires that assistant administrators and regional administrators
are responsible for ensuring that the training requirements found in Item 4 of this order
are met by the agency employees affected by this order. All agency administered
contract statements of work and SEE program cooperative agreements, which govern
the activities of contractor employees and SEE enrollees conducting compliance
Appendix A - Page 514
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
inspections or civil investigations. Training requirements for employees of state and
tribal governments who are authorized to conduct compliance inspections/field
investigations on behalf of the agency are established in the agency's Guidance for
Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal
Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA issued September 30, 2004 and
any subsequent updates. This order does not apply to credentials issued by the Office of
Inspector General, or those issued to agency criminal investigators/special agents.
4. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. The agency's training program for persons being authorized
to conduct compliance inspections/field investigations consists of four parts:
occupational health and safety curriculum, basic inspector curriculum, program-specific
curriculum and annual refresher course requirements. Note: For agency employees
seeking authorization as compliance sampling specialists, abbreviated training
requirements are defined in the memorandum entitled Guidance for Documenting
Required Inspector Training for EPA Employees Prior to Issuing Credentials (pursuant to
EPA Order 3500.1 and 3510) If Training Certificates Are Not Available issued by Lisa
Lund, Director, Office of Compliance, on December 2, 2009.
a. Occupational health & safety curriculum: All agency employees are required to
complete applicable occupational health and safety training as required by Order
1440.2, Safety and Health Environmental Management Guidelines 51 and 56. and
associated guidance22 before engaging in any field activities. The agency's Safety,
Health and Environmental Management Program defined in Order 1440.1,
establishes basic, intermediate, advanced and refresher level training requirements
for compliance inspectors/field investigators in its directives and guidelines. Note:
Separate from this training requirement, Order 1440.2 requires occupational
medical monitoring for certain field activities.
b. Basic inspector curriculum: This training provides a comprehensive overview of the
knowledge and skills needed to conduct compliance inspections/field
investigations under agency statutes. It consists of the basic inspector-training
course, which integrates legal, technical, and administrative subjects with
communication skills. The basic inspector curriculum also includes a requirement
for reading and being aware of compliance monitoring policies that apply to all
individuals who conduct inspections/field investigations including Department of
Transportation Hazardous Materials Training Requirements, Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act information sheet requirements, routine
agricultural biosecurity procedures and training on data collection and reporting
procedures and regional quality assurance plans.
22 Flexibility in the requirements of Order 1440.2 can be found in the July 19, 2009 memorandum from Howard O.
Wilson to Phyllis Flaherty entitled "Safety and Health Training Requirements for EPA Compliance Inspectors and
Field Investigators" and the December 4, 2009 memorandum from Wesley J. Carpenter to Phyllis Flaherty entitled
"Update on Safety and Health Training Requirements." For more information, see the agency's Safety, Health, and
Environmental Management website.
Appendix A - Page 515
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
c. Program-specific curriculum: This curriculum establishes the required and
recommended training in legal, programmatic and technical subjects for each
major media program or specific program compliance inspection/field
investigation activity. If the program-specific curriculum for each major media
program or specific program compliance inspection/field investigation activity is
not specified, e.g., new statutes, then a minimumof 24 hours of appropriate and
relevant program-specific training and completion of a minimum of two (8 hour)
days of on-the-job training or two compliance inspections/field investigations
(whichever is longer) must be completed. The supervisor shall determine the
appropriateness and relevance of the training based on the type and nature of
work to be performed. Additional program-specific specialized training is
recommended to further develop inspection skills.
d. Refresher course requirements: All individuals who are authorized to conduct
compliance inspections/field investigations on behalf of the agency (which may
include first-line supervisors or team leaders) must complete annual refresher
training asfollows:
i. Occupational health and safety training as established by SHEMP. Existing
requirements include a minimum of eight hours of refresher hours annually
for compliance inspectors/field investigators, as found in SHEMP directives
and guidelines;
ii. Basic inspector and program-specific curriculum identified by first-line
supervisors as relevant to their compliance inspectors/field investigators and
training identified in the mandatory refresher training section for each
media; and
iii. Additional training identified by first-line supervisors to improve proficiency
in specialized areas. This includes training necessary for the inspector to
become more proficient in a specific media program, qualified in additional
regulations, qualified for inspecting additional industries or to become
proficient in multi-media work.
e. Exceptions to the training requirement:
i. Occupational health & safety courses: Any exceptions to the required
occupational health and safety curriculum must be in accordance with
SHEMP requirements.
ii. Basic inspector and program-specific curricula: Any exceptions to the basic
inspector or program-specific curricula must be approved in writing by the
appropriate assistant administrator or regional administrator based on an
evaluation by the first-line supervisor or team leader of the compliance
inspector/field investigator's knowledge, experience and relevant training.
Exceptions should be given only in unusual circumstances, and copies of the
approval should be maintained.
Appendix A - Page 516
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
5. RESPONSIBILITIES. This section lists the primary responsibilities for implementing this
order.
a. Compliance inspectors/field investigators: Any individuals who are authorized or
seeking authorization to conduct compliance inspections/field investigations on a
full or part-time basis are responsible for:
i. Completing all applicable training listed in Item 4 of this order before
applying for a new or renewal credential, or conducting an inspection in a
specific media. (Note: The process for applying for and issuing credentials is
detailed in Order 3510: EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and
Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes.) Prior completion of on-the-
job training is not required to apply for an inspector-in-training credential
(agency employees only) or a Temporary Letter of Authorization. Individuals
who have not completed the media specific training for the specific program
under which a compliance inspection/field investigation is being conducted
and who are using an inspector-in-training credential or Temporary Letters of
Authorization must be accompanied by a credentialed inspector who has
completed the required training for the program under which they will be
conducting their compliance inspection/field investigation;
ii. Providing documentation to their first-line supervisor of completion of
relevant training, including dates completed;
iii. As needed, assisting in the preparation of an individual development plan or
other training plan, which addresses training necessary to continue to meet
the requirements of this order; and
iv. Applying and maintaining the knowledge, skills, and techniques acquired
through training to ensure that compliance inspections/field investigations
are accomplished in a technically and legally sound manner.
b. Compliance sampling personnel: Any individuals who are authorized or seeking
authorization to collect samples during a compliance inspection/field
investigation are responsible for:
i. Completing all applicable training for compliance sampling personnel as
defined in the memorandum entitled Guidance for Documenting Required
Inspector Training for EPA Employees Prior to Issuing Credentials (pursuant to
Order 3500.1 and 3510) If Training Certificates Are Not Available issued by
Lisa Lund, Director, Office of Compliance on December 2, 2009;
ii. Providing certificates or appropriate documentation in accordance with the
December 2, 2009 memorandum to their first-line supervisor of completion
of required training, including datescompleted;
iii. Assisting, as needed, in the preparation of an IDP which addresses training
necessary to continue to meet the requirements of this order; and
Appendix A - Page 517
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
iv. Applying and maintaining the knowledge, skills, and techniques acquired
through training to ensure that compliance samples are collected in a
technically and legally sound manner.
c. First-line supervisors or team leaders: All first-line supervisors or team leaders of
compliance inspectors/field investigators and of compliance sampling specialists
are responsible for:
i. Completing the following minimum training requirements within one year of
assuming a first-line supervisor or team leaderposition:
(i) Health and safety requirements (knowledge and understanding), unless
performing any field activities. If any agency employee including a first-
line supervisor or team leader engages in field activities, they are
required to complete applicable occupational health and safety training
as defined in SHEMP directives and guidelines under Orders 1440.1 and
1440.2;
(ii) Basic inspector curriculum, Item 4(b) of thisorder;
(iii) Environmental Statute Review course or equivalent training course on
environmental statutes;
(iv) Documented self-study (such as participating in on-the-job training) of
the media they are responsible for, resulting in development of a
"working knowledge," as defined in Item 6(h) of this order;
(v) Self-study to ensure knowledge of Order 3510: EPA Federal Credentials
for Inspections and Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes and
Other Compliance Responsibilities;
(vi) Self-study of the Supervisor's Guide to Order 3500.1; and
(vii) Training to ensure knowledge of the region's data
collection/reporting procedures for inspection information, including the
Inspection Conclusion Datasheet;
ii. Obtaining knowledge and understanding of multi-media regional specific
procedures and criminal environmental issues;
iii. Completing all applicable training listed in Item 4 of this order if first- line
supervisors or team leaders are also responsible for conducting compliance
inspections/field investigations;
iv. Providing oversight, quality assurance, and quality control of inspection/field
reports, including sampling information. This responsibility may be delegated
to a senior inspector with significant experience in that same program;
v. Ensuring quality compliance inspections/field investigations by using
performance standards, periodic appraisals and appropriate assignments to
Appendix A - Page 518
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
provide for the development and recognition of personnel engaged in the
compliance monitoringfunction;
vi. Identifying employees who require training, ensuring that employees comply
with the requirements of this order, and maintaining applicable records;
vii. Identifying additional program-specific training as appropriate for the type of
work that is being conducted;
viii. Reviewing and evaluating previously trained credentialed inspectors/field
investigators and compliance sampling specialists, on an annual basis, to
determine if they are in need of additional training for professional skills
development, including training in new or revised policies, guidelines or
legislation;
ix. Documenting and placing in the compliance inspector/field investigator or
compliance sampling specialist's personnel file any approved exceptions,
signed by the regional or assistant administrator, to this order;
x. Requiring compliance inspectors/field investigators provide documentation
of completed training to their first-line supervisor/team leader for approval
prior to entry into a data tracking system that meets the requirements in
5(f)(8)(i-v) of this order;
xi. Documenting and maintaining a list of authorized compliance
inspectors/field investigators and compliance samplingspecialists;
xii. Ensuring that compliance inspector/field investigator or compliance sampling
specialists credentials are only requested for personnel whose first-line
supervisors have determined there is a need for a credential, have
completed their necessary training requirements, have documentation of
training completion and are deemed qualified by their first-line supervisor to
conduct quality compliance inspections/field investigations or collect
compliance samples on behalf of the agency. (Note: Prior completion of on-
the-job training is not required to request an inspector-in-training credential
(agency employees only) or a Temporary Letter of Authorization, but training
must be completed prior to requesting a compliance inspector/field
investigator credential.);
xiii. Ensuring that compliance inspectors/field investigators and compliance
sampling specialists have the appropriate credential and have documented
completion of program-specific training for the program in which they will be
conducting their inspection/field investigation or collecting compliance
samples;
xiv. Ensuring that individuals who have not completed the training requirements,
but for whom their first-line supervisor has determined there is a need to
participate in a compliance inspection/field investigation, for such purposes
as on-the-job training or providing specialized expertise:
Appendix A - Page 519
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(viii) Only conduct inspections when accompanied by a credentialed
inspector who has completed the required training for the program;
and
(ix) Have either:
(a) A Temporary Letter of Authorization, as defined in Item 6(d), signed
by the appropriate assistant administrator or regional administrator
or their appropriate delegated authority;
(b) An inspector-in-training credential (agency employees only), as
defined in Item 6(e), for the program in which they will be conducting
their compliance inspections/field investigations;or
(c) A current credential (agency employees only) issued based on
completion of training for another media program;
xv. Ensuring when the first-line supervisor has determined there is a critical need
in emergency situations, individuals who have completed the training
requirements, but have not received an agency credential, have a Temporary
Letter of Authorization, as defined in Item 6(d), signed by their assistant
administrator or regional administrator, or their appropriate delegated
authority before conducting all or part of a compliance inspection/field
investigation; and
xvi. Ensuring that compliance inspectors/field investigators and compliance
sampling specialists are knowledgeable in the region's data collection and
reporting procedures for inspection information.
d. Assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: The assistant
administrator for OECA is responsible for:
i. Updating this order, overseeing and evaluating implementation of the overall
program requirements, including updating the training requirements
required by this order, as needed;
ii. Developing, updating and disseminating student materials and instructor
guides for the basic inspector curriculum to the regions and coordinating the
selection of and maintaining a list of instructors from the regions and
headquarters through the National Enforcement Training Institute e-Learning
Center; and
iii. Identifying and approving data systems for headquarters and the regions
that will enable first-line supervisors, team leaders, and compliance
inspectors/field investigators to track annual training accomplishments in
order to meet the requirements of this order.
e. Assistant administrator for Administration and Resources Management: The
assistant administrator for OARM is responsible for:
Appendix A - Page 520
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
i. Updating and providing sufficient materials for occupational health and
safety training or approving non-agency courses to meet the requirements of
SHEMP and reviewing program-specific health and safety training;
ii. Training and evaluating agency personnel designated as instructors for
delivering the occupational health and safety training;and
iii. Coordinating and disseminating a timely schedule of occupational health and
safety classes, in consultation with OECA, program offices and the regions.
f. Assistant administrators: The assistant administrators of offices which engage in
compliance monitoring are responsible for:
i. Developing, updating, and disseminating materials and schedules for classes
under the program-specific curriculum, in consultation with regions and the
States;
ii. Implementing the requirements of this order within their areas of
jurisdiction, including periodically evaluatingimplementation;
iii. Responding to individual requests for training exceptions. (Note: This can
only be delegated to the deputy assistant administrator);
iv. Ensuring that agency administered contracts and SEE Program cooperative
agreements, involving compliance inspections/civil investigations that the
completion of training, as required by this order, is incorporated into the
appropriate contract statements of work or SEE program cooperative
agreements and enrollee positiondescriptions;
v. Collaborating with the regions and OECA in the development and update of
program-specific curriculum requirements;
vi. Requesting credentials from OARM for personnel whose supervisors have
determined there is a need for a credential, have completed their necessary
training requirements, have documentation of training completion, and are
deemed qualified by their first-line supervisor to conduct quality
compliance inspections/field investigations on behalf of the agency and
ensuring that individuals conducting compliance inspections/field
investigations have the appropriate credentials;
vii. Identifying a single point-of-contact responsible for auditing the office to
ensure the requirements of this order are being met, for coordinating with
OECA;
viii. Maintaining training information in a data system that can:
(i) Track names of compliance inspectors/field investigators and their
supervisors;
(ii) Maintain a list of courses and other training with course names, hours,
required frequency of completion, and descriptions;
Appendix A - Page 521
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(iii) Record completion dates and due dates for required courses and other
training for inspectors;
(iv) Produce reports that list due dates for required refresher training for
compliance inspectors/field investigators within user defined time
periods; and
(v) Provide e-mail alerts to supervisors that inform them of when their staff's
refresher training is due;
ix. Requesting inspector-in-training credentials, as defined in Item 6(e), from
OARM for those personnel whose supervisors have determined there is a
need for a credential to complete on-the-job training requirements; and
x. Providing Temporary Letters of Authorization, as defined in 6(d), on an as-
needed basis, and ensuring that records of such authorization are
maintained, if issued.
g. Regional administrators: The regional administrators are responsiblefor:
i. Implementing the requirements of this order within their areas of
jurisdiction, including periodically evaluatingimplementation;
ii. Responding to individual requests for training exceptions. (Note: This can
only be delegated to the deputy regionaladministrator);
iii. Ensuring that agency administered contracts and cooperative agreements
awarded under the SEE program, involving compliance inspections/civil
investigations that the completion of training, as required by this order is
incorporated into appropriate contract statements of work or SEE program
cooperative agreements and enrollee position descriptions;
iv. Supporting in-house instruction for the basic inspector curriculum by working
with OECA to identify regional personnel to serve as classroom instructors;
v. Requesting credentials from OARM for personnel whose supervisors have
determined there is a need for a credential, have completed their necessary
training requirements, have documentation of training completion, and are
deemed qualified by their first-line supervisor to conduct quality compliance
inspections/field investigations on behalf of the agency and ensuring that
individuals conducting compliance inspections/field investigations have the
appropriate credentials;
vi. Identifying a single point-of-contact responsible for auditing the region to
ensure the requirements of this order are being met, for coordinating with
OECA, and for maintaining information in a tracking system that meets the
requirements in 5(f)(8)(i-v) of thisorder;
vii. Requesting inspector-in-training credentials, as defined in Item 6(e), from
OARM for those agency employees whose supervisors have determined
Appendix A - Page 522
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
there is a need for a credential to complete on-the-job training
requirements; and
viii. Providing Temporary Letters of Authorization, as defined in 6(d), on an as-
needed basis and ensuring that records of such authorization are maintained,
if issued.
6. DEFINITIONS
a. Compliance inspector/field investigator: Any individual authorized, through the
issuance of a credential, to conduct or oversee for the purpose of investigating and
documenting the compliance status of facilities or sites with applicable laws,
standards, regulations, permits, and/or of supporting appropriate enforcement
action (administrative, civil judicial or criminal).
Any credentialed agency employee performing these activities regardless of job or
credential title or program shall be considered a compliance inspector/field
investigator for the purpose of this order. The terms compliance inspector/field
investigator will be used throughout this order. This does not include individuals
who engage in field activities or investigations for purposes such as observing the
inspection, research and development or programmatic activities unrelated to
compliance monitoring or enforcement, or investigations that do not involve field
work. This also does not include individuals who receive credentials issued by OIG or
to agency criminal investigators/special agents.
Individuals performing work as on-scene coordinators and remedial project
managers under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act program who do not conduct inspections/field investigations as part of
their job function, are not covered by the definition of the compliance
inspection/field investigator. Those on-scene coordinators and remedial project
managers will receive credentials that authorize them to carry out the functions of
their position; however, on-scene coordinators and remedial project managers who
do conduct field inspections/field investigations are covered by this definition and
are subject to this order. Additional program guidance has been developed to assist
regions in distinguishing these functions from other programmatic responsibilities.
b. Compliance sampling specialist: Any individual authorized and issued a credential to
collect samples for the purpose of documenting compliance with applicable laws,
standards, regulations, permits, and/or of supporting appropriate enforcement
action (administrative, civil judicial or criminal). The situations under which an
agency employee may receive credentials as a compliance sampling specialist are
defined in the memorandum entitled Guidance for Documenting Required Inspector
Training for EPA Employees Prior to Issuing Credentials (pursuant to EPA Order
3500.1 and 3510) If Training Certificates Are Not Available issued by Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance on December 2, 2009.
C. First-line supervisors of inspectors: This includes:
Appendix A - Page 523
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
i. An individual who is the immediate supervisor of the day-to-day work of
personnel authorized to conduct civil compliance inspections/field
investigations.
ii. An individual in a team leader position, if they perform similar functions as a
first-line supervisor.
d. Temporary Letter Credential (also known as a Temporary Letter of
Authorization):23 A letter credential signed by an assistant administrator or regional
administrator or their appropriate delegated authority that authorizes an
individual to conduct all or part of a compliance inspection/field investigation
under a specific statute. Temporary Letters of Authorization will only be issued for
the purposes of obtaining on-the- job training, providing specialized expertise in
the program area or for emergency situations. When a Temporary Letter of
Authorization is issued to an individual who has not completed the required
training, that individual must be accompanied by a credentialed compliance
inspector/field investigator who has completed the required training for the
program in which they will be conducting their inspection/field investigation. The
letters will not be used for individuals who conduct inspections on a routine basis.
The letters will be valid for the time period outlined in Order 3510, and are not
renewable.
e. Inspector-in-training credential: A credential issued to agency employees only by
OARM that authorizes an individual to conduct all or part of a compliance
inspection/field investigation under specific statutes in order to complete on-the-
job training requirements. When an individual issued an inspector-in-training,
credential participates in an inspection, that individual must be accompanied by a
credentialed compliance inspector/field investigator who has completed the
required training for the program in which they will be conducting their
inspection/field investigation on all inspections. Inspector-in-training credentials
will be valid for a maximum of one year.
f. Curriculum: The defined content presented in a sequence of supervised self-study,
formal on-the-job and/or classroomtraining:
i. Supervised self-study: Knowledge gained through independent, personal
study (such as computer-based training or web-based training) with
oversight by a first-line supervisor, team leader, and/or an experienced
inspector/investigator.
ii. On-the-job training: Structured training that relates to principles, theories or
work-related skills which are demonstrated and applied in the field
environment during an actual compliance inspection/field investigation.
23 A Temporary Letter Credential is also known, and commonly referred to, as a Temporary Letter of Authorization
or Letter of Authorization.
Appendix A - Page 524
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
iii. Classroom/classes: Any form of instruction, (flexible in format and size to
include seminars, workshops, lecture-type or video-assisted classes, or
question-and-answer sessions following prior independent self- study) that
foster group interaction with an instructor or an experienced
inspector/investigator.
iv. e-Learning: Comprises all forms of electronically supported learning and
teaching, including but not limited to training found on the NETI e-Learning
Center.
g. Completing required training: Satisfactorily completing all training, as defined in
Item 4 of this order.
h. Working knowledge: A sufficient knowledge of statutory/regulatory requirements,
field inspection methods, and some experience accompanying an
inspector/investigator for a particular program. This knowledge would be required
as the minimum needed to be able to evaluate the completeness and quality and
sign-off on inspection reports.
7. REFERENCES
a. Order 1440.2, Health and Safety Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field
Activities issued April 23, 2013.
b. Order 1440.1, Sgfety, Heglth gnd Environmentgl Mgnggement Progrgm (SHEMP)
issued November 20, 2012.
c. Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Guidelines 51: Safety, Health and
Environmental Management Training, and 56: Job Hazard Analysis.
d. Guidgnce for Documenting Reguired Inspector Trgining for EPA Employees Prior to
Issuing Credentigls (pursugnt to Order 3500.1 gnd 3510) If Trgining Certificgtes Are
Not Avgilgble, memorandum from Lisa Lund, Director, Office of Compliance, issued
December 2,2009.
e. EPA Credentigl gnd Inspector Trgining Policy Compendium, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance. Contact: Compliance Policy Staff,
202-564-7002.
f. Order 3510. EPA Federgl Credentigls for Inspections gnd Enforcement of Federgl
Environmentgl Stgtutes gnd Other Complignce Responsibilities revised October 31,
2012.
g. Guidgnce for Issuing Federgl EPA Inspector Credentigls to Authorize Employees of
Stgte/Tribgl Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behglf of EPA issued
September 2004.
Appendix A - Page 525
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
h. Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Employees of
Contractors to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA issued May 31, 2013.
I Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Senior Environmental
Employment Program Enrollees to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA issued
September 30,2013.
j. Supervisor's Guide to Order 3500.1, issued October2003.
Appendix A - Page 526
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix B -
EPA Order 3510, EPA Federal Credentials for
Inspections and Enforcement of Environmental
Statutes
Appendix B - Page 527
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
«ERA
ORDER
Classification No: 3510
Approval Date: 10/09/2008
Administrative
Change Date: 10/31/2012
EPA FEDERAL CREDENTIALS FOR INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND OTHER COMPLIANCE RESPONSBILITIES
1. PURPOSE This Order establishes the roles and responsibilities of EPA organizations to
issue and manage inspector credentials and Temporary Letters of Authorization.
Inspector credentials and Temporary Letters of Authorization are issued to employees
of EPA states, tribes, territories, contractors, and other federal agencies, and program
participants in an assistance agreement program (grant or cooperative agreement,
hereinafter referred to as enrollees), who are authorized by EPA to conduct inspections
or investigations and take samples on EPA's behalf under the various federal
environmental statutes.
This Order also addresses credentials issued to On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) who direct response efforts and cleanup of oil
spills/hazardous substance releases as well as other EPA employees who require
credentials to carry out their delegated compliance responsibilities, e.g., Administrative
Law Judges. This Order does not apply to credentials issued by the Office of Inspector
General (OIG), or those issued to EPA Criminal Investigators/Special Agents.
This Order establishes the procedures for use by EPA employees in issuing EPA
credentials. It is not intended to create rights or obligations enforceable against or by
any other parties. Failure to comply with this Order cannot be used by any party as a
defense in an enforcement action.
2. BACKGROUND. EPA's mission is to protect the environment and public health. To carry
out its mission, various federal environmental statutes give the Administrator the
authority to conduct inspections, investigations and take samples at facilities subject to
these statutes and related regulations. While most EPA statutes provide the
Administrator inspection authority, each statute also provides varying language
Appendix B - Page 528
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
identifying who can be authorized by the Administrator to conduct inspections,
investigations, and sampling. In most cases, duly authorized representatives could
include federal, state, tribal, territory, or contractor employees, or program participants
in a grant or cooperative agreement program. The Administrator has delegated to
specified senior managers the authority to authorize or designate employees or
representatives to conduct inspections/investigations and take samples. These
delegations are statute specific.
a. A credential is defined in Chapter 10 of EPA's Security Manual as "a testimonial
showing that a person is entitled or has a right to exercise official power." A
credential may be provided to only those employees designated as duly
authorized representatives of the Administrator.
b. Inspector Credentials: The inspector credential identifies the person to whom it
is issued as an authorized representative of EPA with the authority to conduct
inspections, investigations and sampling under EPA's statutes.
A number of statutes specifically require the inspector to present a credential.
However, it is EPA policy to present a credential when conducting inspections,
investigations, and sampling to an official of the facility at the beginning of the
activities at the facility. The specific statutory definition of the "official" who may
accept the inspector's credential should be determined prior to the inspection in
order to assure legal entry onto the facility and avoid delays.
Because the credential identifies the bearer as having the authority to inspect
and/or investigate under EPA's statutes, it provides the bearer broad access to
establishments, facilities, and other property for the purpose of: 1) inspecting
relevant activities and components including records, processes, equipment, and
products; 2) taking photographs/videos; and 3) collecting documentary and physical
samples. Thus, credentials should be carefully managed and the bearer must be
qualified to conduct inspections, investigations, sampling and other necessary
activities in accordance with EPA procedures and policies.
c. On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs): In
addition to the above, EPA provides credentials to On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs), who are responsible for the initial assessment, monitoring, and directing
of response efforts and coordinating all other efforts at the scene of an oil spill
or hazardous substance release. The OSCs may also be authorized to conduct
inspections, investigations, sampling and other activities necessary in accordance
with EPA procedures and policies. Similarly, EPA provides credentials to
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), who are responsible for the continued
management of response efforts initiated by the OSC and coordinating all other
efforts at the scene of an oil spill or hazardous substance release.
d. Credentials Issued to Others: In addition to issuing credentials to inspectors,
investigators, OSCs and RPMs, EPA also issues credentials to Regional
Appendix B - Page 529
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Administrators, Administrative Law Judges and Debarment Counselors to
identify their position by title and function. These credentials do not provide
inspection, investigation, or sampling authority.
3. POLICY. EPA credentials which provide inspection authority should be issued only to
qualified individuals, including Agency officials, and employees and, in certain instances,
to non-EPA personnel, such as state, tribal, and territory employees, contractor
employees, and program participants in a grant or cooperative agreement program
(e.g., Senior Environmental Employment Program Enrollees - SEEs), and employees of
other federal agencies. To be considered qualified, individuals seeking an inspector
credential must have completed the required minimum training including basic
inspector training, health and safety training, and media specific training including on-
the- job and annual refresher training as required in EPA Order 3500.1. EPA should only
issue credentials to individuals for whom EPA has made a determination of need for the
credentials in order to perform activities such as inspections, investigations, sampling,
oversight and/or remediation on behalf of EPA and pursuant to specific federal statutes
and policies/guidance. EPA credentials which do not provide inspection authority may
also be issued to EPA employees in certain positions to identify them as holding that
position and thus authorized to carry out their delegated responsibilities.
a. Temporary Letter of Authorization: Under limited circumstances, a Temporary
Letter of Authorization signed by an Assistant Administrator or Regional
Administrator, or their appropriate delegated authority, may be issued when an
individual has not completed the minimum required training but will accompany
a credentialed inspector and assist with the inspection.
For the purposes of this Order, a Temporary Letter of Authorization is defined as a
letter signed by an Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator, or their
appropriate delegated authority, that authorizes the bearer to conduct all or part of
a compliance inspection/field investigation under a specific statute. Temporary
Letters of Authorization will only be issued for the purposes of on-the-job training,
providing specialized expertise in the program area, or for emergency situations.
When a Temporary Letter of Authorization is issued to an individual who has not
completed the required training, that individual must be accompanied by a
credentialed compliance inspector/field investigator during the inspection. A
Temporary Letter of Authorization will not be used for personnel who conduct
inspections on a routine basis. A Temporary Letter of Authorization will be valid for a
maximum of 90 days, and is notrenewable.
If the individual is observing only, and not assisting in the inspection, the individual
may use their identification badge as identification. A Temporary Letter of
Authorization can also be issued to individuals in emergency situations, when time
does not allow for issuance of a credential.
b, Inspector-in-Training Credential: Note, an inspector-in-training credential can be
issued to an employee of EPA who is in the process of completing training to
Appendix B - Page 530
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
become an inspector. The inspector-in-training credential authorizes an
individual to conduct all or part of a compliance inspection/field investigation
under a specific statute provided he is accompanied by a credentialed inspector
while completing on-the-job training requirements. When an individual issued an
inspector-in-training credential participates in an inspection, that individual must
be accompanied by a credentialed compliance inspector/field investigator. The
issuance of inspector-in-training credentials are statute specific and will be valid
for a maximum of one year.
c. Safeguarding and Control: Credentials must be properly controlled and used for
official duties in accordance with the roles and responsibilities listed below. EPA
employees who obtain credentials which authorize them to carry out
inspections, investigations, sampling and other necessary activities are subject to
EPA Order 3500.1 (training) and EPA Order 1440.2 (health and safety) and any
subsequent Orders or Guidelines addressing health and safety requirements.
Prior to issuing credentials to state or tribal employees, the appropriate EPA
Program Office must ensure that the criteria and requirements in the September 30,
2004 (or subsequent versions) Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector
Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct
Inspections on Behalf of EPA (September 2004 Guidance) are met.
For employees of contractors and program participants in a grant or cooperative
agreement program the contract or grant/cooperative agreement issuing office
must ensure that the contract statement of work or grant (cooperative agreement
or authorization agreement) contains appropriate provisions related to the training
requirements, performance of the inspection, and handling of the credentials. (See
"Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of
Contractors to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA" (Contractor Guidance), and
"Guidance for Using Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program Enrollees to
Assist the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Conduct of Inspections,
Investigations, and Sampling" (SEE Guidance). NOTE: these guidances are currently
under development and the appropriate reference will be added here when they are
complete.)
Employees of other agencies (including other federal agencies) may be authorized
and obtain credentials only if there is a written authorization agreement signed by
the delegated Regional or Headquarters official and the appropriate official from the
other agency who has the authority to enter into such agreements. The written
authorization agreement should contain provisions that mirror those required for
employees of states and tribes as found in the September 2004 Guidance, and
subsequent policies or guidance that specifically addresses employees of other
agencies. Other federal agencies must be reimbursed for the cost of conducting
inspections under an interagency agreement or similar authorized arrangement.
Appendix B - Page 531
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
d. Expiration Date: All credentials must have an expiration date of no longer than
five years. Credentials issued to individuals under grants or cooperative
agreements not funded by State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) and
contractor employees should bear an expiration date consistent with the time
frame of the grant (cooperative agreement or authorization agreement) or
contract, but no longer than fiveyears.
For other federal agencies, states, tribes or territories, the credential expiration date
should be consistent with the authorization agreement, but in no case longer than
five years from the date of issuance.
The appropriate EPA office issuing the credentials must ensure that the credentials
are returned to EPA as soon as possible, but within 10 business days after their
expiration date.
e, Non-EPA Personnel: Credentials issued to non-EPA personnel (states, tribes,
contractors, SEE enrollees, and other federal agencies) must be statute specific.
This is because the authority to issue credentials to non-EPA personnel varies
across statutes. Not all statutes allow for the authorization of contractors or SEE
program participants or employees of other federal agencies. See the
forthcoming Contractor and SEE Guidances for more details on statutory
authority
1 Annual Inventory: Each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials will
annually inventory stock of unissued credentials, including any special stock
paper24 used by that office to print the credentials, and maintain records that the
inventory was conducted. Each office should develop a protocol for an annual
audit and recordkeeping procedures. Each office distributing credentials must
have procedures in place for the inventory. EPA offices which issue credentials
must ensure that 10% of credentials issued are inventoried once a year to ensure
that the recipient has the credential in his possession. The issuing office is
responsible for maintaining records of this inventory.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES
• Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA)
a. Establishes the policies and conditions for credentials issued pursuant to this
Order. These include procedures, policies, and guidance for issuing federal
credentials to EPA employees for the purposes described under the Policy
section. They also include procedures, policies and guidance applying to non-EPA
personnel, such as employees of states, tribes, territories, contractors, other
24 Note: special stock paper refers to paper with markings that is used for credentials issued electronically.
Appendix B - Page 532
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
federal agencies, and SEE enrollees, to conduct compliance inspections on behalf
of EPA and pursuant to authority in individual statutes.
b. Consults with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) on the scope of statutory
authority, as appropriate.
C. Determines which credential titles can be used that authorize inspections,
investigations, and sampling.
d. Establishes minimum training requirements for personnel (including EPA and
non-EPA personnel) seeking credentials which authorize them to conduct
inspections, investigations, or take samples on behalf of EPA, and training for
supervisors of EPA inspectors. (See EPA Order3500.1)
e. Designs the credentials issued to non-EPA personnel inspectors. Establishes an
expiration time frame of no longer than five years for credentials issued to non-
EPA personnel.
f. Prints (for headquarters only) the credentials and establishes minimum steps
and procedures for regional and headquarters programs to issue credentials and
Temporary Letters of Authorization to employees of contractors and program
participants in a grant or cooperative agreement program, and employees of
otheragencies.
g. Establishes requirements for non-EPA written agreements (i.e., state and tribal
authorization agreements, contractor statements of work and contracts, SEE
assistance agreements) that ensure: 1) appropriate control and oversight of the
issuance, use and return of credentials; and 2) the minimum training
requirements are met.
h. Establishes policies and requirements for overseeing implementation of policies
related to credentials and their use, e.g., tracking credentials issued to non-EPA
personnel.
i. Ensures that all credentials issued to non-EPA personnel have tamper- proof
safeguards.
j. Establishes procedures to ensure that all non-EPA personnel sign an
acknowledgement statement upon receipt of the credential. The
Acknowledgement Statement states that the credential holder agrees to comply
with the provisions of the applicable credentials guidance, and any subsequent
Guidance, including those which require safeguarding the credential.
k. Conducts an annual inventory of unissued credentials for non-EPA personnel and
maintains records of the inventory. Develops procedures for the annual
inventory and record keeping procedures which ensures that a minimum of
10% of credentials issued to non-EPA personnel are inventoried annually
Appendix B - Page 533
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
including physical verification that the individual issued the credential has it in
their possession
1, Forwards all incoming reports received on lost or stolen credential incidents to
the OARM Security Management Division and OIG_Hotline@epa.gov, orToll free
(888) 546-8740/Fax (202)566-2549.
m. Develops inspector training including the basic inspector training and program
specific training (dependent on available resources).
• Director, Security Management Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS),
Office of Administration and Resources Management, (OARM)
a. Issues credentials to EPA employees upon the receipt of appropriate and approved
documentation from the Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator as
appropriate. The signature approving the documentation must include the printed
name and title of the official. Documentation must certify that there is a need for
such credentials and verify that the required training was completed. Employees will
be authorized to conduct inspections only for those programs for which they have
completed training as required by EPA Order 3500.1 including program specific
training required prior to receiving an EPA credential. OARM will provide EPA
employees a credential only after verification by the employee's supervisor that they
have completed all required training in the desired media (including on-the-job
training—OJT), basic inspector training and required health and safety training.
n. Ensures that all credentials issued to EPA employees have tamper-proof
safeguards.
b. Ensures that all EPA employees sign an acknowledgement statement upon receipt of
the credential which states that they agree to comply with the provisions of the
Order including those which require safeguarding the credential.
c. Establishes a timeframe for expiration of credentials issued to EPA employees of no
longer than five years and determines the schedule for issuing credentials.
d. Processes background investigations for EPA employees and for other credential
applicants as requested by the issuing office.
e. Maintains a central database of outstanding credentials issued to EPA employees,
tracks active credentials issued, and provides limited access for external verification
when requested.
f. Conducts an annual inventory of credentials issued to EPA employees in addition to
the stock of unissued special stock paper25 and maintains records of the inventory.
Develops the protocol for the annual inventory and record keeping procedures.
25 Note: special stock paper refers to paper with markings that is used for credentials issued electronically
Appendix B - Page 534
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Ensures that a minimum of 10% of credentials issued to EPA employees are
inventoried annually, including verification that the individual issued the credential
has it in their possession.
g. Forwards all incoming reports received on lost or stolen credential incidents to the
OIG Hotline@epa.gov. or Toll free (888) 546-8740/Fax (202) 566-2549.
• Regional Administrators (RAs), Assistant Administrator (AA) for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and other AAs who are delegated
authority to authorize inspections
a. Ensure that credentials are appropriately issued in accordance with this Order.
b. Ensure that credentials issued to EPA and non-EPA personnel are used only for
authorized official duties including activities such as conducting EPA inspections,
investigations, or sampling to determine compliance. Credentials are not to be used
to gain entry for any other purposes e.g., for conducting a compliance assistance
visit or for general access to gain entry into EPA space.
c. Ensure that EPA credentials issued to EPA and non-EPA personnel are safeguarded
by those individuals by requiring them to be kept in a secure location, never
relinquishing them nor allowing them to be photocopied.
d. Ensure that a lost or stolen EPA credential issued to an EPA or non-EPA individual is
reported to the proper EPA representatives as soon as possible but not later than 72
hours after discovering that the credential is missing. For EPA Regional employees,
the proper EPA representative is the regional Security Representative. If located in
headquarters, the proper EPA headquarters representative is the OARM Security
Officer. For non-EPA personnel, the proper EPA representative is the EPA Project
Officer (states, tribes and SEE's), or Contracting Officer Representative (contractors).
e. Ensure the return of credentials issued to EPA and non-EPA personnel to
Headquarters or the Program, or Regional Office when they expire or when the
bearer either leaves the job or is no longer responsible for conducting EPA
inspections.
f. Ensure that a minimum of 10% of credentials issued to non-EPA personnel, including
states, tribes, contractors, other federal agencies and program participants in a
grant program are inventoried annually, including verification that the individual
issued the credential has it in their possession. Ensure that stock used to print
credentials is inventoried annually.
g. Ensure that personnel being authorized to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA
meet all requirements prior to making the request forcredentials.
h. Certify that the person seeking an inspector credential needs the credential to
conduct inspections and investigations on EPA's behalf, and certify that the required
Appendix B - Page 535
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
training has been completed and that background investigation requirements have
been met.
• For federal employees, this includes certifying that the employee has completed
the required training requirements, including basic inspector training, health
and safety training, and program specific training as required in EPA Order
3500.1.
• For state/tribal employees, this includes ensuring that an authorization
agreement is in place and that the criteria and requirements in the September
2004 Guidance (or any subsequent guidance) have been met.
• For employees of contractors or program participants in a grant program, or
employees of other agencies, this includes ensuring that the grant or contract,
and the authorization agreement require the employees or program
participants in a grant program to complete the training requirements found in
EPA Order 3500.1 prior to providing credentials and that refresher training is
completed annually (see the Contractor and SEE Guidances). Ensure that the
contract, grant, cooperative agreement, and authorization agreement contain
provisions to address the handling, use, and return of the credentials or, in the
event the credential is lost or stolen, report the loss of the credential as soon as
possible but not later than 72 hours after discovering that the credential is
missing.
i. Ensure that employees who have not completed the training requirements, but for
whom their first-line supervisor has determined there is a need to participate in a
compliance inspection/field investigation, for such purposes as on-the-job training
or providing specialized expertise, have a compliance inspector/field investigator
who has been issued credentials accompanying them on the inspection/field
investigation, and a Temporary Letter of Authorization signed by their Assistant
Administrator or Regional Administrator, or an inspector-in-training credential, as
defined in Section 2.
j. Ensure when the first-line supervisor has determined there is a critical need in
emergency situations, employees who have completed the training requirements,
but have not received an EPA credential, have a Temporary Letter of Authorization,
as defined in Section 2, signed by their Assistant Administrator or Regional
Administrator, before conducting all or part of a compliance inspection/field
investigation.
k. Ensure appropriate updates to suitability background investigations for federal
employees have been completed. Prior to hiring an employee or moving an
employee into a new position, supervisors of EPA employees work with EPA's
security office to determine the appropriate level of background/suitability check
needed. The supervisor addresses the federal inspector background/suitability check
in the context of all of the employee's job responsibilities, not just their inspection
Appendix B - Page 536
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
duties. Prior to requesting credentials for either new or existing federal inspectors,
the requesting office needs to determine if the level of risk has changed from when
the previous risk determination was made as reflected on the employee's SF52. If
the level of risk has changed, then the requesting office needs to ensure that the
appropriate level of background/suitability check is completed.
I. Ensure that employees of contractors, grants, states, tribes or territories seeking
credentials have complied with EPA requirements for background checks, if any.
(Note: For contracts or grants, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-
12) requires EPA administered contracts and grants now include a requirement for
an appropriate background check.) This Order does not impose new requirements
for background checks for states/tribes. (Thus, for state/tribal inspectors, under this
Order, no requirements for background checks take effect until EPA puts in place
such new requirements - probably through regulations. This interim approach relies
on what checks the state and tribal governments have performed as a condition for
state/tribal employment.)
m. Ensure authorization agreements are in place which meet the requirements of the
September 2004 Guidance, or any subsequent guidance, when authorizing state and
tribal employees to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA. Ensure September 2004
Guidance, or any subsequent guidance, requirements are met regarding: 1) making
requests for credentials from OECA; 2) tracking credentials; 3) receiving incoming
inspection reports from the state or tribe; 4) reporting results; and 5) developing
authorization agreements.
n. Designate a Program or Regional Credentials Contact to work with OECA and OARM
to ensure implementation of all appropriate internal credentialing policies and
procedures.
o. Deliver training as appropriate to ensure that inspector training requirements are
met.
• Holders of EPA Credentials agree to do the following as a condition of receiving
credentials:
a. Comply with all internal policies and procedures and all training and background
investigation requirements for obtaining an EPA credential.
b. Use credentials only for authorized, official duties. These duties may include
conducting an EPA inspection, investigation, taking samples to determine
compliance, or responding to a spill or working at a cleanup site. Credentials are not
to be used to gain entry for other purposes, e.g., for conducting a compliance
assistance visit, or for general access to gain entry into EPA space.
c. Safeguard credentials by keeping them in a secure location and never relinquishing
them, even when presenting them at the start of an inspection, or allowing the
credential to be photocopied. Report the loss or theft of the credential to the proper
Appendix B - Page 537
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPA representatives as soon as possible but not later than 72 hours after discovering
that the credential is missing. For EPA employees, the proper EPA representative is
the regional Security Representative. If located in headquarters, the headquarters
OARM Security Officer. Non-EPA personnel should report as required in the
appropriate guidances.
d. Return credentials to the Program or Regional Office when they expire or when the
bearer either leaves the job or is no longer responsible for conducting EPA
inspections.
e. Adhere to all applicable EPA Confidential Business Information (CBI) regulations such
as 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B and program specific CBI requirements.
f. Complete annual refresher training as required by EPA Order 3500.1, keep records
of their training completion dates and provide to first-line supervisor as required
5. AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. Part 7414(a) (2), 7414(c), 7542(b), 7525(c)
Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. Part 1318(a) 1318(c)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 42
U.S.C. Part 9604(d) 9604(e), Executive Order 12580, section 2(j) (2) Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 7 U.S.C. Part 136f (b), 136g,
136u, 136w-l
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. Part 6927(a) Safe Drinking Water
Act 42 U.S.C. Part 300j-4(b) (1)
Toxic Substances Control Act 15 U.S.C. Part 2610(a)
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and
Offshore Facilities; Final Rule 33 U.S.C. Part 1321(m) (2) (B)
6. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITIES
EPA Delegation 7-8 Inspections and Information Gathering Clean Air Act (CAA)
EPA Delegation 2-13 Inspections and Information Gathering Clean Water Act (CWA)
and Oil Pollution Prevention (OPA)
EPA Delegation 14-6 Inspections, Sampling, Information Gathering, Subpoenas and
Entry for Response Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
EPA Delegation 5-9 Inspections and Information Gathering Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Appendix B - Page 538
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPA Delegation 9-12 Inspections and Information Gathering Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)
EPA Delegation 8-8 Inspections and Information Gathering Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPA Delegation 12-1 Inspections and Subpoenas Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
7. REFERENCES
Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of
State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance. Contact: Julie
Tankersley 202-564-7002, or e-mail at tankersley.iulie@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/policies/monitoring/inspection/statetribal
c redentials.pdf
Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting
Inspections on EPA's Behalf, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Office of Compliance. Contact: Julie Tankersley 202-564-7002, or e-mail at
tankersley.julie@epa.gov
http://intranet.epa.gov/oecaftp/intranet/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/referenc/statet
ri balcredprocess.pdf
EPA Order 3500.1, Training and Development for Individuals who Lead Compliance
Inspections/Field Investigations, December 23, 2002. Contact: Julie Tankersley 202-
564-7002, or e-mail at tankersley.iulie@epa.gov
http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicy/ads/orders/3500 lAl.pdf
EPA Credential and Inspector Training Policy Compendium, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance. Contact: Julie Tankersley 202-564-
7002, or e-mail at tankersley.iulie@epa.gov
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html
EPA Order 1440.1, Safety, Health and Environmental Program (SHEMP) and
associated guidelines, http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicy/ads/orders/1440 l.pdf
EPA Order 1440.2, Safety and Health Training Requirements for Agency Employees,
January 10, 2011. http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicy/ads/orders/1440 2.pdf
Final Fact Sheet: The United States Environmental Protection Agency Credentials
Fact Sheet, Signed June 1, 2000 by Michael Stahl, Director, Office of Compliance,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
http://intranet.epa.gov/oecaftp/intranet/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/protocol/npdes
in spect/npdesinspectappf.pdf
Guidance for Using Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program Enrollees to
Assist the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Conduct of Inspections,
Appendix B - Page 539
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Investigations, and Sampling. (NOTE: this Guidance is currently under development
and the appropriate reference will be added here when it is complete.)
Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of
Contractors to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA. (NOTE: this Guidance is
currently under development and the appropriate reference will be added here
when it is complete.)
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requires EPA administered
contracts and grants now include a requirement for an appropriate
background/suitability check, http://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-presidential-
directive-12
8. PERIODIC REVIEW
The Office of Compliance, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division will
periodically review Order 3510 to ensure its continued effectiveness and adherence
with applicable rules and regulations.
Appendix B - Page 540
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix C -
EPA Order 1440.2,
Health and Safety Requirements for Employees
Engaged in Field Activities
Appendix C - Page 541
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
ORDER
Classification Number: 1440.2
Approval Date: 01/10/2011
Administrative Change: 04/23/2013
EPA ORDER
SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING REQUIREMENT FOR AGENCY EMPLOYEES
1. PURPOSE
This Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Order establishes policy, responsibilities
and mandatory requirements for occupational safety and health training and
certification of Agency employees.
2. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the safety and health training and certification programs for Agency
employees are:
a. To ensure that all EPA employees are aware of the potential hazards they may
encounter during the performance of general and job-specific work activities;
b. To provide the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the work with the least
possible risk to personal safety and health;
c. To ensure that Agency program goals are accomplished in a safe and healthful
manner as feasible; and
d. To ensure that EPA employees can safely disengage themselves from an actual
hazardous situation that may occur during general and job-specific work
activities.
3. BACKGROUND
Agency employees engage in a broad range of activities including routine administrative
tasks in office settings, materials handling operations in warehouses, facility and
equipment maintenance, environmental sampling, inspections and criminal
investigations, analysis and monitoring, training and exercises, and emergency response
activities.
Appendix C - Page 542
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Many of these activities involve entering and working in environments with known and
unknown hazards. Protection cannot be engineered into all situations, and protection of
personnel involves training employees in safe operational procedures that may also
include the proper use of appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment.
4. POLICY
It is EPA policy to carry out its activities in a manner that ensures the protection of its
employees and compliance with regulations. All EPA Program Offices and Regions must
support a comprehensive safety, health and environmental training program. Such
programs provide knowledge and skills necessary to perform job-related tasks with the
least possible risk. Training is necessary for preventing or minimizing injuries and
illnesses in the workplace and is required under numerous safety, occupational health
and environmental standards.
5. APPLICABILITY
This Order applies to all EPA organizational units and locations that have Agency
employees.
6. DEFINITIONS
a. The term "certification" means that the employee has successfully completed
the minimum classroom and hands-on training requirements for the specified
need, and the appropriate local and/or programmatic health and safety official
has certified or attested that the employee met these requirements.
b. The term "employee" is defined as any full, part-time, temporary, or permanent
EPA employee; a detailee to EPA from another government agency; an individual
enrolled in the EPA Senior Environmental Employment Program; a student
assigned to EPA; an EPA stay-in-school program participant; an intern or fellow
assigned to EPA; or any other individual who is designated on a case-by-case
basis by the Director of the Safety, Health, and Environmental Management
Division (SHEMD) or senior Agency officials. Furthermore, this term includes EPA
top management officials, supervisors, safety and health personnel, safety
committee members, and employees who are representatives of employee
groups.
c. The term "field activities" means EPA program activities that are conducted by
EPA employees outside of EPA administered facilities. These activities include,
but are not limited to, criminal investigations, compliance inspections and
sampling conducted under all EPA statutes, hazardous material spill and waste
site investigations, and field duties with EPA's Response Support Corps or
Incident Management Teams.
d. "Job Hazard Analysis (JHA)" is a systematic technique to identify, characterize,
and evaluate the demands, potential health, and physical hazards or risks
Appendix C - Page 543
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
associated with an employee's job description and tasks. The purpose of JHA is
to ultimately develop and confirm recommended safe work procedures and
controls to eliminate/control the associated hazards.
e. The term "laboratory activities" means EPA activities that are conducted in a
mobile or fixed laboratory workplace by EPA employees who may be exposed to
hazardous chemicals or agents in the course of his or her assignments.
f. The term "other activities" means all EPA activities where additional safety and
health training or awareness needs are identified beyond traditional field or
laboratory settings. Examples include those involving repetitive motion in office
settings, warehouse and materials handling activities, grounds and equipment
maintenance activities, or other activities where safety and health training or
awareness is required for employees to meet operational needs.
g. The term "safety and health training" means scheduled training approved and
sponsored by EPA and conducted by Agency employees or contractors that is
designed to develop, improve or upgrade the safety and health knowledge of
EPA employees. For the purposes of this Order, various types of training include:
i. Orientation. Fundamental safety and health training on subject areas that all
employees receive during their orientation period.
ii. Initial. Training in addition to the subject areas covered during the employee
orientation period that meets a particular need identified through a JHA, a
specific authority, EPA guidance, local policy, etc., prior to assignment or
before the employee performs the affected work.
iii. Refresher. Training that may be provided on a routine basis (e.g., annually) to
build upon previous knowledge or training in a specific subject and to keep
skills up to date. The requirements for refresher training are usually specified
under a specific authority, JHA, EPA Guidance, local policy, etc.
7. RESPONSIBILITIES
a. Administrator. The Administrator is responsible for establishing and maintaining
the Agency's Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Program (SHEMP).
b. Assistant Administrator (AA). Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM). The AA-OARM serves as EPA's Designated Agency Safety
and Health Official with responsibility for establishing EPA's occupational safety
and health policies and programs.
c. Director, SHEMD. The SHEMD Director is responsible for establishing policy and
guidance for training and certification programs for Agency activities, approving
safety and health training and certification programs for employees, and
evaluating the results of these training and certification programs.
Appendix C - Page 544
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
d. Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators. These officials are
responsible within their jurisdictions for implementing the provisions of this
Order and for providing the necessary funds for employee training and
certification.
e. Supervisors. Supervisors are responsible for complying with the requirements of
this Order for employee training and certification. Supervisors will identify those
employees who require job-specific safety and health training and certification in
conjunction with the local SHEMP manager, will ensure they receive training in
compliance with the provisions of this Order, and will ensure these requirements
are properly contained in position descriptions and job postings.
f. Safety. Health and Environmental Management Program Officials (e.g.. the local
SHEMP Manager/Specialist). The SHEMP managers are responsible for
identifying program areas that require training and certification and
recommending or providing training and certification resources to meet the
requirements of this Order. Additionally, SHEMP managers certify or attest on
behalf of the Agency, that the employee has successfully completed the
minimum classroom and hands-on training requirements specified for the
needed training and maintain records of persons receiving training and
certification.
g. Employees. Employees are responsible for knowing the extent of their individual
occupational safety and health training. Employees should notify their supervisor
of any hazardous work situation and make suggestions for corrective measures.
Employees are responsible for applying the knowledge, skills, and techniques
acquired through training in a manner that will help ensure their safety and
health and that of fellow workers, and they must participate in safety and health
training provided by the Agency.
8. TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
a. This Order establishes general orientation and job-specific safety and health
training requirements for the following groups of EPA employees:
i. Management. Managers shall receive orientation to assist in managing the
occupational safety and health programs ofSHEMD.
ii. Supervisors. First-line supervisors shall receive introductory and specialized
courses to recognize and eliminate occupational safety and health hazards in
the workplace. The training shall cover procedures for reporting and
investigating workplace hazards and motivating subordinates toward
ensuring safe and healthful work practices.
iii. Safety. Health and Environmental Management Program Officials. SHEMP
managers/specialists shall receive occupational safety and health training to
understand the basic elements related to hazard recognition, hazard
Appendix C - Page 545
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
evaluation and control, workplace inspection, equipment and facility design,
and injury and illness data, as applicable to operations within their respective
reporting units.
iv. Collateral Duty Safety and Health Personnel. Collateral duty safety and health
employees (e.g., incident management team safety officers and other
employees who perform this function as an additional duty) shall be provided
training commensurate with their assigned duties and shall have an
understanding of SHEMD's occupational safety and health program.
v. Employees and Employee Representatives. Employees shall be provided with
general and job-specific safety and health training appropriate to the
operational needs within the Agency and to the work they perform.
Employee representatives (such as union officials, safety committee
representatives and others) shall be provided training to assist in workplace
inspections and gain an understanding of their basic duties as employee
representatives.
b. General and job-specific training for EPA employees is defined as follows:
i. General Safety and Health Orientation Training. All employees shall be
provided with core safety and health training at the time of employment
during their orientation period. The training shall include, but not be limited
to, subject areas identified in SHEM Guideline 51.
ii. Job-Specific Safety and Health Training. All employees shall be provided with
additional job-specific safety and health training before the employee
actually performs work. Job-specific training is described in SHEM Guideline
51, which provides methods and checklists to identify job- specific training
needs.
Additional job-specific training needs may be identified in a JHA for an
employee's position. Detailed information regarding JHAs is provided in
SHEM Guideline 56.
Supervisors shall work collaboratively with safety and health officials to
implement the training requirements in SHEM Guideline 51. the
requirements of any associated JHA, and any regulatory requirements (e.g.,
hazardous waste operations and emergency response training required
under 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.120).
c. Job-specific safety and health training shall meet the following minimum
requirements for field, laboratory and other specialized activities. (Note: The
SHEMP manager may certify employees based on an evaluation of previous
training, education and experience. Recommendations for this type of certification
should be made to the SHEMP manager at the reporting unit.)
i. Field Activities. All employees that engage in field activities shall be provided
a minimum of 24 hours of safety and health training prior to becoming
Appendix C - Page 546
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
involved in normal, routine field activities. Eight hours of annual refresher
training is also required. The 24-hour training shall include, but not be limited
to, instruction in all of the following subject areas:
• Nature of anticipated hazards
• Emergency help and self-rescue (i.e., emergency planning in remote
locations)
• Safe use of field equipment
• Use, handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials
Personal protective equipment/clothing, use and maintenance Safe
sampling techniques
• First aid
Within six months of receiving instruction, the employee shall accompany
another employee experienced in field activities and perform actual field
tasks with supervision for a minimum of three days. Employees
satisfactorily completing these requirements will be considered certified
for field activities by the SHEMP manager at the reporting unit.
ii. Laboratory Activities. All employees that engage in laboratory activities shall
be provided a minimum of 24 hours of safety and health training prior to
becoming involved in normal, routine laboratory activities. Four hours of
annual refresher training is also required. The 24-hour training shall include,
but not be limited to, instruction in all of the following subject areas:
• Engineering controls, administrative/work practice controls, and
personal protective equipment
• EPA Medical Surveillance Program
• Safety, health, and environmental management plans
• Signs and symptoms of chemical, physical, and biological exposures
Locations and uses of emergency equipment
• Waste management program
• Labeling, storage, and handling of chemicals
• Chemical inventory and management program Material safety data
sheets
• Emergency procedures
• Fire and life safety
Within six months of receiving instruction, the employee shall accompany
another experienced employee and perform actual laboratory activities and
tasks with supervision for a minimum of three days. Employees satisfactorily
completing these requirements will be considered certified for laboratory
activities by the SHEMP manager at the reporting unit.
Appendix C - Page 547
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
iii. Other Specialized Activities. All EPA employees that supervise or participate
in specialized or unique activities that are not covered elsewhere in this
Order must be provided with safety and health training that is commensurate
with anticipated hazards. Depending on specific duties or tasks, training
requirements for employees engaged in these activities may involve up to 40
hours or more of training. The levels of training will be established by the
SHEMP manager and employees' supervisors in accordance with SHEM
Guidelines 51 and 56 and other applicable requirements. Examples of
specialized activities where this may apply include, but are not limited to:
• Boating and marine operations EPA diving operations
• Trailer loading and towing
• Mobile equipment transportation, set-up and operation (e.g., command
posts, mobile laboratories, etc.)
• Aerial operations, surveillance, and reconnaissance
• Off-road, self-propelled, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) operations Powered tool
and equipment operations (e.g., table saw, portable drill, stationary drill
press, welding equipment, etc.)
• Firearms and powder activated devices
• Facility operations, equipment, and maintenance Materials handling,
storage, and transport
• Medical response operations (e.g., first aid, CPR, AED, EMT, oxygen
administration, etc.)
• Regulated activities (e.g., hazardous waste operations and emergency
response, use of respiratory protection equipment, lead or asbestos
abatement, formaldehyde, ethylene oxide, arsenic, blood borne
pathogens, chemical warfare agents, nanomaterials, construction areas,
confined spaces, etc.)
• Commercial driving
• Other specialized or unique activities that are not covered elsewhere in
this Order yet require additional safety and health training
Employees shall be provided with a combination of virtual, classroom, and
hands-on training prior to becoming involved in specialized activities.
Employees satisfactorily completing specific training requirements for
other specialized activities shall be provided corresponding certifications
from the SHEMP manager at the reporting unit.
9. FREQUENCY OF TRAINING
Safety and health training should begin at the time of employment or prior to
assignment, before the employee actually begins performing particular job duties.
Appendix C - Page 548
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Employees engaged in field or laboratory activities shall complete a minimum of 24
hours respectively of initial safety and health training prior to assignment. Employees
engaged in field activities shall complete a minimum of eight hours of refresher
instruction annually. Employees engaged in laboratory activities shall complete a
minimum of four hours of refresher instruction annually. Where this or additional
requirements for refresher training have been identified, instruction shall include a
review of all relevant subject areas in order to maintain certification. Training
requirements are identified in SHEM Guideline 51. JHAs, EPA Orders, mandatory
training requirements, regulatory requirements and other sources.
SHEMP managers, in coordination with supervisors, will determine if the employee's
training is consistent with the requirements of this Order. For example, in cases
where employees have lapsed certifications or resume certain activities after an
extended time gap, the SHEMP manager will determine if initial or refresher training
must be completed.
10. RECORD OF TRAINING
a. A record of the training and certification shall be maintained by the appropriate
local and/or programmatic health and safety official. Records, at a minimum,
shall identify the trainee by name, the training topic and course title, the training
date, and the name of the training source, where applicable.
b. The SHEMP manager shall maintain a recordkeeping system to document the
training topics and certification levels for each employee at the reporting unit.
c. The SHEMP manager shall monitor training and certification records to establish
schedules for appropriate refresher training.
d. The SHEMP manager shall ensure employees and supervisors have access to
their safety and health training and certification records.
e. Nationally consistent titles for training topics and certifications as established in
EPA SHEM Guideline 51 shall be used to record and communicate the receipt of
training.
11. AUTHORITIES
a. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
b. Executive Order 12196, Occupational Health and Safety Programs for Federal
Employees
C. 29 CFR Part 1910, Occupational Safety and Health Standards
d. 29 CFR Part 1960, Basic Program Elements for Federal Employees
e. 40 CFR Part 311, Worker Protection
Appendix C - Page 549
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
1 EPA Order 1440.1, Safety, Health and Environmental Management
g. EPA Order 1440.3, Respiratory Protection
h. EPA Order 1000.18, Transportation of Hazardous Materials
i. EPA Order 1440.5A, Qualifications and Training Requirement for Occupational
Health and Safety Program Personnel
j. EPA Order 1440.7, Hazard Communications
k. EPA Order 1460.1, Occupational Medical Surveillance Program
1, EPA Order 2072, Response Support Corps
m. EPA Order 3500.1 Al, Training and Development for Compliance Inspectors/Field
Investigators
n. 29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and Health Standards for Construction
0, Government Employees Training Act of 1958, as amended in 1994
p. Title 5 of the United States Code 4101, et seq.
q. 5 CFR Part 410, Training
r. Other federal, state, and local code training requirements as applicable
12. REFERENCES
SHEMD Intranet site: http://intranet.epa.gov/shemd/
SHEM Guideline 38: Radiation Safety and Health Protection Program
SHEM Guideline 50: Federal Employee Occupational Health and Safety Program
SHEM Guideline 51: Mandatory Health and Safety Training
SHEM Guideline 56: Job Hazard Analysis
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9285.3-12, Emergency
Responder Health and Safety Manual
13. PERIODIC REVIEW
SHEMD will periodically review EPA Order 1440.2 to ensure its continued effectiveness
and adherence with applicable rules and regulations.
This Order supersedes Order 1440.2, which was approved on July 12, 1981.
Appendix C - Page 550
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix D -
EPA's Memorandum on Practices to Follow and
Avoid when Requesting Information
Appendix D - Page 551
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
apr is m
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Practice to Follow aid Avoid When Conducting CompKance Inspections:
RtqtusHmg htfrrmaxiea
This mgoorantiiim transmits a list of practices which are recommended to be followed
and avoided when requesting kfomaim during wmpllanee inspections. This fist wag prepared
in consultation with staff ftwn the Office of Regulatory Enforcement to address concerns
expressed by Congress with regard to overly burdensome requests for information by EPA
compliance inspectors. It is recommended flat all BPA compliance inspectors follow or avoid
these practices, as aqppxopriate. Pfease distribute this list to tie inspectors in your respective
Ol^lUZ&ttOO.
Hank yw for your attention, We hope this guidance improves the understanding of
procedure to follow when requesting any intonation while conducting compliance inspections.
We encourage all BPA Compliance Inspectors to follow these good practices.
If yoo have any questions, pletse contact Inlie Tankeraley at (202) 564-7002, or email at
tankersiev.iiilie@epa.pov. This list of good practices will also te posted on the EPA Inspector
website at http://intMaeLep,Boy/o£ca/oc/metd/ifls^ctQtf.
FROM; Michael S. AtrnMn, Director
Compliance Assessment and Media Pragraitis Division
TO:
Addressees
Attachment
Mam* AdtM (URL)» hqp://www.«pa.gpv
Wn^ii^i . f»s«f wit] v»«mh> 01 M m»« Bumm Psper (MtsMnin# 29* Pmuiimimi}
Appendix D - Page 552
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
2
List of Addressees;
Regional Enforcement Division Directors, Regions 1-10
Regional Media Division Directors, Regions 1-10
Regional Science an4 Techoology Division Pirecte, Regions 1-10
Region*! Enforcement t^oriiiaters, Regions 1-10
Michael StaM, Director, Office ofCompIituce
Lisa Lund, Acting Deputy Difesior, Office of CwnpJiiiM
OCDffisloa Directors
Connie Musgrove, Actkg Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
George Lawrence, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
ORB Division Directors
Leo D*Amice, Director, Office of Critnlaal Enforcement, Porensics & Training
OCEFT Division Director*
Mary Kay Lynch, Director, Office ofPlsaning, Policy Analysis, & Coaununicatwns
Diana Love, Director, National Enforcement Investigations Center
David Lopez, Director, Oil Program Cfflter
GaryJonesi
Appendix D - Page 553
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Privileged - For Internal use only - Do not releaie nier FOIA
Practice! t© Fallow and Avoid When Conducting ConpUuice lospections
A number of recent Congressional inquiries into the EPA's authority to request infomutjan to
determine compliance prompted OECA to develop tie following "Practices To Fellow and
Avoid When Conducting Compliance lspecioi»".
The Practices an designed to comply with legal and policy pidaee. First, they ask that a case
file be opened prior to conducting «inspection, which should m We aay march on potential
violations at the facility, Second, they miaintw the possibility ii#pek» will request
information lit considered pat of a routine compliance inspection, teipectors should sot
mpsi ini>ffliati« that should be collected undera fbaaal iiftimitian request using the
authorities in each of the wviromnental statutes (it, CAA Sectionl 14,RCRA Section 3007,
CWA Section. 308, TSCA Section 11, FIFRA Sections 8 aid % SDWA Section 3001, OPA
Section 311, CE1CLA Section 104}. Theje ia&ntMiou requests are formal documents that can
result in the commstcemeit of an enfowoflent action by EPA ptnsiiani to the enforcement
sections of the statute.
OECA expects EPA iasperten to foflow tie goo4 prartktt mi tl«»e to avoid Usted Maw.
t'uUow When Coiitlumug lomplimc inspwtiom
¦ Oonduct rcaearch on the potential for violations before conducting inspections
• Open ai individual enforcement case file (a pbjsieii or electronic file with the facility nime,
location, pKviou inspections, etc.) prior to conducting inspections
• Use inspection checklists only is i guide, Bent Mow tk ekecMist blindly. Tailor your
questions to tin individual facility. It is generally not reepiind to uk every question on the
checklist at every facility.
¦ Use of ai inspection checklist should be used fa the purpose of determining compl« or.
supporting an active or planned enforcement action.
¦ Additional questions asked of facility persxmei should be related to the direct observations
noted during the field portion of tie iaspectioi or based on poor nsesieh.
¦ Banc question! such as number of employees, engineering drawings, i»u® of operation are
allowed to be asked even if they are not specifically "required by regulations"
Practice* to Ai'tsMMien Conducting inspection?, '
X Avoid asking questions as a general survey of t* ficility or clsss of facilities
X Avoid asking questions wish, tre unrelated to fee purpose of the site visit
X Avoid asking for information from tk facility luring the inspection that is onerous and nay tale
more thin a few Ays to provide.
X Avoid Mfcing questions tint ire typically iacliiced in a statulny "fafciwfiwi request" (e.g„,
CAA 114 requests or RCRA 3W? request)
January 22,2002
Appendix D - Page 554
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix E -
Sample CWA Section 308 Information Collection
Request Letter (308 Letter)
Appendix E - Page A-555
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Date
Name
Address
Dear Name:
Enclosed is an Information Request (Request) issued to (company name), pursuant to Section
308(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Part 1318(a), which authorizes the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to request information required to carry-out the objectives of the CWA. The
Request relates to waterbodies in your vicinity that are impaired by pollutants frequently associated
with discharges from animal feeding operations. EPA needs to ensure that your facility is operating
properly to protect water quality. Only one response is required from (company name) and your
response to the Request must be post-marked no later than thirty (30) days from your receipt of this
letter.
Please be advised that failure to respond to the Request within the thirty (30)-day period or
provide full, complete, true and correct responses, may result in additional action requiring you to
properly respond to the Request.
EPA urges you to give this matter your immediate attention and respond to this Request in a
timely manner. Your response must be signed by an authorized official and should be mailed to
(appropriate designated official) at the address above.
If you have any questions regarding this Request, you may contact (appropriate designated
official).
Sincerely,
Director
Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division
Appendix E - Page A-556
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Article Number: (#)
(Contact Name)
(Company)
(Address)
Re: Request for Information Pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
CWA-IR-15-025
(Company Name)
EPA ICIS NPDES Tracking No. (#)
(state)PDES General Permit No. (#)
Dear (contact name):
Section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. Part 1318(a), provides that whenever it is
necessary to carry out the objectives of the CWA, including determining whether or not a person/agency
is in violation of Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Part 1311, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") shall require the submission of any information reasonably necessary to
make such a determination. Under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA, EPA may require the
submission of information necessary to assess the compliance status of any facility and its related
appurtenances.
(Company name) obtained coverage under the (appropriate state program) Construction Activity Storm
Water General Permit ("Construction General Permit" or "CGP"), (state program) Permit No., on or
about (date) for the site. The CGP regulates storm water discharges to surface waters from construction
activities, including clearing, grading and excavation, which disturb one (1) acre or more of land. The
effective CGPs for the past 5 years were the February 28, 2007 renewal, with a minor modification on
August 17, 2009 ("2009 CGP") and the current March 1, 2012 renewal ("2012 CGP").
On (date), representatives of the EPA conducted a Reconnaissance Inspection ("Rl" or "Inspection") of
the (site name) and identified violations of the CGP, as detailed in the attached Rl report.
A. Pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, (company name) shall submit, for the (site name), to
EPA Region (#) the following:
1. within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of receipt of this Request for Information, submit in
writing, the actions (including schedules) that the facility has taken to address the Potential
Noncompliance Items in the Rl report.
2. within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of receipt of this Request for Information:
a. the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(s) ("SPPP") that were in place for the period January
2011 to Present as required by Part E.l and Attachment B of the CGP (which includes both the
Erosion and Sediment Control component and the Construction Site Waste Control component);
b. weekly routine inspection reports required by Part I.E.3 of the CGP for the period January 2011
to the present;
c. for the period January 2011 to the Present, as applicable, submit, all Annual Reports required by
Appendix E - Page A-557
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Part I.E.4 of the 2009 CGP through February 28, 2012 and Reports of Noncompliance required by
Part I.E.4 of the 2012 CGP and I.E.5 of the 2009 CGP;
d. for the period January 2011 to present, if (company name) does not have any of the information
required above, then identify the dates of the unavailable reports and identify why such reports
were not completed;
e. the date when excavation and construction activity began at the (site name);
f. the date when excavation and construction activity will be, or is expected to be, completed at
the (site name); and
g. a report containing the costs associated with storm water management controls including labor,
operations and maintenance, installation, etc. which were required to achieve compliance for
the period June 11, 2015 to present. These costs should include:
i. updating the SPPP as site conditions require;
ii. fully implementing the SPPP; and
iii. installation of stormwater best management practices
B. Within ninety (90) calendar days of the date of receipt of this Request for Information submit a
complete listing and required information for all sites one (1) acre or greater, owned or operated
by (company name), parent companies and/or subsidiaries, or any other entity under the general
management of (company name) that are either under construction, have not undergone final
stabilization, or that are under contract for construction. The response list and information must
include:
a. the site name, street/location, city, and zip code (including Latitude and Longitude
information);
b. the area of the site (in acres);
c. the number of disturbed acres (or acres that will be disturbed);
d. a copy of the approved Request for Authorization;
e. a copy of the Letter of Acknowledgement or Authorization to Discharge, if applicable;
f. the name(s), address, telephone number and contact person name for each of the operators
or owners of the construction site including a list of subcontractors at each site who are
responsible for clearing grading and/or excavating;
g. the date that the construction began or is scheduled to begin and the date that construction is
expected to be completed;
h. the name of the receiving body or bodies of water for the storm water discharges;
i. the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(s) ("SPPP") that were in place for the period
January 2012 to the present as required by Part E.l and Attachment B of the CGP, which
includes both the Erosion and Sediment Control component and the Construction Site Waste
Control component;
j. weekly routine inspection reports required by Part I.E.3 of the CGP for the period January
2012 to the present; and
Appendix E - Page A-558
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
k. for the period January 2012 to the present, the Reports of Noncompliance required by Part
I.E.4 of the 2012 CGP and I.E.5 of the 2009 CGP.
CERTIFICATION
Any documents to be submitted by (company name) shall be sent by certified mail or its equivalent and
shall be signed by an authorized representative of the respective entity (see 40 CFR Part 122.22), and
shall include the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
All information required to be submitted pursuant to this Request for Information shall be sent by
certified mail or its equivalent to the following addresses:
Chief, Water Compliance Branch
Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region (#)
(address)
(name), Administrator
Water and Land Use Enforcement
(state department)
(address)
For further information on EPA's Storm Water Program such as Best Management Practices and Storm
Water Controls see EPA's web site at: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/const.cfm
(appropriate state website)
If you have any questions regarding this Request for Information, please contact (appropriate
designated official).
Sincerely,
Chief
Water Compliance Branch
Enclosures
Appendix E - Page A-559
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Article Number: (#)
(Name)
Assistant Commissioner
Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
96-05 Horace Harding Expressway, 2nd Floor
Corona, New York 11368
Re: Request for Information Pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. Part 1318)
Docket No. (#)
SDPES Permit Nos. (#)
Dear (name):
This letter concerns discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States from facilities
associated with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection ("NYCDEP").
Section 301 of the Federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. Part 1251, etseq., prohibits the
discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States except as authorized by a permit issued
pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Part 1342. Each discharge of pollutants from a point
source that is not authorized by such a permit constitutes a violation of Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. Part 1311(a).
This letter and the enclosures are a request for information issued pursuant to Section 308(a) of
the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318(a). Section 308 of the CWA authorizes the Administrator of Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") to require those subject to the CWA to furnish information, conduct
monitoring, provide entry to the Administrator or authorized representatives and make reports as may
be necessary to carry out the objectives of the CWA. The enclosures, which are hereby made part of this
letter, details the information NYCDEP must provide to EPA relating to its wastewater collection system
and its treatment plants.
Section 308(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Part 1318(a) authorizes EPA to require any person to
provide information required to carry out the objectives of the CWA including to determine whether
there has been a violation of the CWA. Accordingly, you are requested to respond to the enclosed
Information Request (Enclosure 1). Please read the instructions and definitions in the enclosure carefully
before preparing your response. Answer each question as clearly and completely as possible. To the
extent that NYCDEP has any of the requested data currently on file, that data may be submitted in the
requested format as part of your response. Your response to this request must be accompanied by a
certificate that is signed and dated by you or the person who is authorized by you to respond to the
request. The certification must state that the response is complete and contains all information and
documentation available to you pursuant to the request. A Statement of Certification is enclosed
with this letter (Enclosure 2).
Appendix E - Page A-560
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Please submit your written responses in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the request to:
(Name), Chief
Municipal Enforcement Branch
Office of Civil Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Room 3111B)
Washington, DC 20460
Email:
Telephone:
Fax:
(Name), Chief
Water Compliance Branch
Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Email:
Telephone:
Fax:
Although the information requested must be submitted to EPA, you are entitled to
assert a business confidentiality claim pursuant to the regulations set forth in 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B. If EPA determines the information you have designated meets the criteria in 40 CFR
Part 2.208, the information will be disclosed only to the extent and by means of the procedures
specified in Subpart B. Unless a confidentiality claim is asserted at the time the requested
information is submitted, EPA may make the information available to the public without further
notice to you.
Compliance with the provisions of this letter is mandatory. If you do not respond fully
and truthfully to this Information Request or adequately justify your failure to do so, you may
be subject to civil penalties or criminal fines under Section 309 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Part 1319,
under which injunctive relief and penalties may be sought. Such an enforcement action may
include the assessment of penalties of up to $37,500 per violation, for each day of continued non-
compliance.
We appreciate your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. If you or your
staff would like an opportunity to confer, have any questions, or would like to schedule a
meeting relating to this information request, please contact (appropriate designated official).
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Chief
Water Compliance Branch
USEPA Region 2
Enclosures
(1) Information Request
(2) Statement of Certification
Appendix E - Page A-561
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix F -
Final Fact Sheet: The Do's and Don'ts
of Using U.S. EPA Credentials
Appendix F - Page A-562
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DATED: JUNE 1,2000; SIGNED: MICHAEL STAHL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Fact Sheet:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Credentials Fact Sheet
FROM: Michael Stahl, Acting Directors/ MICHAEL STAHL
Office of Compliance
TO: See Attached List
Purpose The purpose of this memo is to transmit the final fact sheet on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) credentials. The fact sheet does not
change existing EPA policies on credentials. The fact sheet is designed to inform
EPA managers, supervisors, and employees of the overall process regarding U.S. EPA
credentials. The fact sheet pertains only to EPA employees. The fact sheet contains
information on the definition, policy, authority, language, issuing procedures,
accountability, renewal, potential penalties for improper use, and specific do's and
don'ts.
Process A draft fact sheet was transmitted for your review on April 14, 2000. The Office of
Compliance (OC) received comments on the draft fact sheet from Regions 2, 3,4, 6, 7
and 8, and from the Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ), the Office of Regulator)' Enforcement (ORE), and the Office of
Administration and Resource Management (OARM). The fact sheet was revised
based on the comments.
Request Please distribute a copy of the fact sheet to all EPA employees holding EPA
credentials. The fact sheet will also be posted on the OC Compliance Inspector Web
Site, (http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/metd/inspector)
Future OARM will include a copy of the fact sheet with the credentials when they are
Procedure renewed every three (3 years).
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Appendix F - Page F-563
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Addressees:
Eric Schaeffer, Director, ORE
Leo D'Amico, Director, OCEFT
Barry Breen, Director, OSRE
James C. Nelson, Associate General Counsel, Cross-Cutting Issues Law Office
Barry Hill, Director, Office of Environmental Justice
John Fogarty, Acting Director, Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
Craig Hooks, Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Rich Lemley, Director, Facilities Management and Services Division
Steve Zeigler, Chief, Security and Property Management Branch
Regional Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Science and Technology Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Enforcement Coordinators, Regions I-X
Regional Security Managers, Regions I-X
ORE Division Directors
OC Division Directors
OSRE Division Directors
Louis Halkias, Acting Director, Criminal Investigations Division
Jonathan Cole, Director, Legal Counsel and Resource Management Division
Diana A. Love, Director, NEIC
Gerald Bryan, Director, NETI
Yvette Jackson, OARM
Ken Gigliello, OC
Appendix F - Page F-564
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The Do's and Don'ts of Using U.S. EPA Credentials
These do's and don'ts are established based on good management practices for ensuring the
proper use of EPA credentials by EPA employees. The practical purpose of the do's and don'ts is
to make EPA employees aware of the importance to safeguard credentials, and limit their use
to ONLY enforcement functions.
DO'S
DON'TS
Do use for official duties described in
the credentials
Do NOT use for non-enforcement
government business
Do use to conduct compliance inspections
Do NOT allow anyone to hold or take
possession of your credentials
Do use to conduct compliance investigations
Do NOT loan the credentials to anyone.
This includes other EPA employees.
Do use when responding to
environmental complaints and/or spills
Do NOT photocopy the credentials
Do use to conduct facility audits
Do NOT fail to report a lost or stolen
credentials to your supervisor
Do use to verify status as an EPA official when
interviewing witnesses in the field
Do NOT allow anyone else to photocopy or
use the credentials
Do use as identification for entry into
facilities regulated under federal
environmental laws and regulations
Do safeguard storage of credentials
Do always immediately report if the EPA
credentials is lost or stolen to your
immediate supervisor
Appendix F - Page F-565
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
FACT SHEET ON CREDENTIALS ISSUED TO
EPA EMPLOYEES DO'S AND DON'TS
5/23/00
Source: EPA Security Manual, Physical Security Section, Volume 4850-1, dated 7/16/84
DEFINITION
The 1984 Security Manual defines an EPA credential as: "An EPA credential is a pocket warrant
authorized by the Administrator, Assistant Administrator, or Regional Administrator that
identifies the bearer as having the authority to act in an enforcement, inspection, survey, or
investigation capacity." However, the EPA's legal authority to perform the enforcement,
inspection, survey, or investigation functions is based on the applicable federal environmental
statutes passed by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States.
The credential evidences the proper delegation of this authority and does not provide
independently the authority to undertake these activities.
POLICY
EPA credentials should be issued only to those officers and employees who routinely need them
to actively perform official enforcement, inspection, survey or investigative functions. EPA
credentials generally are not issued to non-EPA employees, but in certain situations may be
issued to State or tribal personnel, contractors, or grantees. In the event that non-EPA
employees are authorized by the Administrator, Regional Administrator, or Assistant
Administrator to possess EPA credentials, the credentials will be issued by the Regional Office,
Lab, or other organization which has responsibility for overseeing the duties of the credentialed
non-EPA employee.
LANGUAGE
The language on the EPA credential states:
Appendix F - Page F-566
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
United States of America Environmental Protection Agency
This is to Certify that (EPA Employee's Name)
Whose Signature and Photograph Appear Below is a Duly Commissioned
(blank space for insertion of title)
Each credential includes ONE of the following titles:
Inspector, Compliance Officer, Enforcement Officer,
On-Scene Coordinator, Remedial Project Manager,
Debarment Counselor or Law Judge
Authorized to Conduct Official Investigations and
Inspections Pursuant to All Federal Laws
Administered by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
ISSUANCE
The requesting Headquarters program, media office, Regional office or Lab, should transmit a
brief memorandum of justification to the Headquarters Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM) requesting credentials to be issued to specific EPA employees. The memo
should include the names, titles, organization, official duties, date of request, and the signature
of requesting official. The requesting party is responsible for ensuring that the bearer has met
applicable training requirements (e.g.. EPA Order 3500.1). OARM (Security Management) will
issue the federal credentials to the named employees after review of the information.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Since credentials are issued only to assist the bearer in the performance of official duties, the
credentials should be returned to OARM when the bearer leaves the position requiring the EPA
credentials. The employee's office should send OARM a brief note explaining the reason the
credentials are being returned (e.g., retirement, employee reassigned to a position not
requiring a credential)
If the EPA credentials are lost or stolen, the bearer should promptly notify his or her immediate
supervisor, in writing, and a copy should be sent to OARM. A brief report of the circumstances
surrounding the loss or theft should be forwarded to the Security Management Staff along with
the new request. If a new set of credentials is required, the above procedures will be followed.
Failure to promptly notify the supervisor of a lost or stolen credential could result in
disciplinary action against the bearer.
RENEWAL
EPA credentials will be renewed every three (3) years by OARM. The Security Management
Official will transmit a list of Regional employees whose credentials will expire to the Security
Representative in each Region for review. The Security representative is responsible for
Appendix F - Page F-567
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
ensuring that all listed personnel still have a need for the credential and applicable training is
up-to-date. Once the list has been updated and returned to the HQ Security Management
Official, OARM will renew the Regional credentials. All credentials are reissued on a rolling
monthly basis to each Region (e.g., January for Region I, February for Region II, etc.)
Each Headquarters Office will receive a listing of employees whose credentials will expire. The
Office Director is responsible for ensuring that all listed personnel still have a need for the
credential and applicable training is up-to-date. OARM will renew these credentials on a first-
come, first-served basis. All Headquarters credentials expire in December of the calendar year.
Appendix F - Page F-568
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix G -
EPA's Memorandum On Entry Procedures
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM office of enforcement
TO: Regional Administrators
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors
Enforcement Division Directors
FROM: Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
SUBJECT: Conduct of Inspections After the Barlow's Decision
I. Summary
This document is intended to provide guidance to the Regions in the conduct of inspections in
light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., U.S., 98 S. Ct. 1816
(1978). The decision bears upon the need to obtain warrants or other process for inspections
pursuant to EPA-administered Acts.
In Barlow's, the Supreme Court held that an OSHA inspector was not entitled to enter the non-
public portions of a work site without either (1) the owner's consent, or (2) a warrant. The
decision protects the owner against any penalty or other punishment for insisting upon a
warrant.
In summary, Barlow's should only have a limited effect on EPA enforcement inspections:
• Inspections will generally continue as usual;
• Where an inspector is refused entry, EPA will seek a warrant through the U.S.
Attorney;
• Sanctions will not be imposed upon owners of establishments who insist on a
warrant before allowing inspections of the non-public portions of an establishment.
The scope of the Barlow's decision is broad. It affects all current inspection programs of EPA,
including inspections conducted by State personnel and by contractors. The Agency's
Appendix G - Page 569
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
procedures for inspections, particularly where entry is denied, were largely in accord with the
provisions of Barlow's before the Supreme Court issued its ruling. Nevertheless, a number of
changes in Agency procedure are warranted. Thus, it is important that all personnel involved in
the inspection process be familiar with the procedural guidelines contained in this document.
This document focuses on the preparation for and conduct of inspections, including (1) how to
proceed when entry is denied, (2) under what circumstances a warrant is necessary, and (3)
what showing is necessary to obtain a warrant.
II. Conduct of Inspections
The following material examines the procedural aspects of conducting inspections under EPA-
administered Acts. Inspections are considered in three stages: (1) preparation for inspection of
premises, (2) entry onto premises, and (3) procedures to be followed where entry is refused.
A. Preparation
Adequate preparation should include consideration of the following factors concerning the
general nature of warrants and the role of personnel conducting inspections.
(1) Seeking a Warrant Before Inspection
The Barlow's decision recognized that, on occasion, the Agency may wish to obtain a warrant to
conduct an inspection even before there has been any refusal to allow entry. Such a warrant
may be necessary when surprise is particularly crucial to the inspection, or when a company's
prior bad conduct and prior refusals make it likely that warrantless entry will be refused. Pre-
inspection warrants may also be obtained where the distance to a U.S. Attorney or a magistrate
is considerable so that excessive travel time would not be wasted if entry were denied. At
present, the seeking of such a warrant prior to an initial inspection should be an exceptional
circumstance, and should be cleared through Headquarters. If refusals to allow entry without a
warrant increase, such warrants may be sought more frequently. (For specific instructions on
how to obtain a warrant, see Part D.)
(2) Administrative Inspections v. Criminal Investigations
It is particularly important for both inspectors and attorneys to be aware of the extent to which
evidence sought in a civil inspection can be used in a criminal matter, and to know when it is
necessary to secure a criminal rather than a civil search warrant. There are three basic rules to
remember in this regard: (1) If the purpose of the inspection is to discover and correct, through
civil procedures, noncompliance with regulatory requirements, and administrative inspection
(civil) warrant may be used; (2) if the inspection is in fact intended , in whole or in part, to
gather evidence for a possible criminal prosecution, a criminal search warrant must be obtained
under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (3) evidence obtained during a
valid civil inspection is generally admissible in criminal proceedings. These principles arise from
the recent Supreme Court cases of Marshall v. Barlow's. Inc.. supra: Michigan v. Tyler. U.S. 98
S.Ct. 1942 (1978); and OS. v. LaSalle National Bank. U.S.4 57 L. Ed: 2d 221 (1978). It is not
completely clear whether a combined investigation for civil and criminal violations may be
Appendix G - Page 570
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
properly conducted under civil or "administrative" warrant, but we believe a civil warrant can
properly be used unless the intention is clearly to conduct a criminal investigation.
(3) The Use of Contractors to Conduct Inspections
Several programs utilize private contractors to aid in the conduct of inspections. Since, for the
purpose of inspections, these contractors are agents of the Federal government, the
restrictions of the Barlow's decision also apply to them. If contractors are to be conducting
inspections without the presence of actual EPA inspectors, these contractors should be given
training in how to conduct themselves when entry is refused. With respect to obtaining or
executing a warrant, an EPA inspector should always participate in the process, even if he was
not at the inspection where entry was refused.
(4) Inspections Conducted by State Personnel
The Barlow's holding applies to inspections conducted by State personnel and to joint
Federal/State inspections. Because some EPA programs are largely implemented through the
States, it is essential that the Regions assure that State-conducted inspections are conducted in
compliance with the Barlow's decision, and encourage the State inspectors to consult with their
legal advisors when there is a refusal to allow entry for inspection purposes. State personnel
should be encouraged to contact the EPA Regional Enforcement Office when any questions
concerning compliance with Barlow's arise.
With regard to specific procedures for States to follow, the important points to remember are:
(1) The State should not seek forcible entry without a warrant or penalize an owner for insisting
upon a warrant, and (2) the State legal system should provide a mechanism for issuance of civil
administrative inspection warrants. If a State is enforcing an EPA program through a State
statute, the warrant process should be conducted through the State judicial system. Where a
State inspector is acting as a contractor to the Agency, any refusal to allow entry should be
handled as would a refusal to an Agency inspector as described in section II.B.3. Where a State
inspector is acting as a State employee with both Federal and State credentials, he would utilize
State procedures unless the Federal warrant procedures are more advantageous, in which case,
the warrant should be sought under the general procedures described below. The Regions
should also assure that all States which enforce EPA programs report any denials of entry to the
appropriate Headquarters Enforcement Attorney for the reasons discussed in section II.B.4.
B. Entry
(1) Consensual Entry
One of the assumptions underlying the Court's decision is that most inspections will be
consensual and that the administrative inspection framework will thus not be severely
disrupted. Consequently, inspections will normally continue as before the Barlow's decision was
issued. This means that the inspector will not normally secure a warrant before undertaking an
inspection but, in an attempt to gain admittance, will present his credentials and issue a notice
of inspection where required. The establishment owner may complain about allowing an
inspector to enter or otherwise express his displeasure with EPA or the Federal government.
However, as long as he allows the inspector to enter, the entry is voluntary and consensual
Appendix G - Page 571
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
unless the inspector is expressly told to leave the premises. On the other hand, if the inspector
has gained entry in a coercive manner (either in a verbal or physical sense), the entry would not
be consensual.
Consent must be given by the owner of the premises or the person in charge of the premises at
the time of the inspection. In the absence of the owner, the inspector should make a good faith
effort to determine who is in charge of the establishment and present his credentials to that
person. Consent is generally needed only to inspect the non-public portions of an establishment
i.e., any evidence that an inspector obtains while in an area open to the public is admissible in
an enforcement proceeding.
(2) Withdrawal of Consent
The owner may withdraw his consent to the inspector at any time. The inspection is valid to the
extent to which it has progressed before consent was withdrawn. Thus, observations by the
inspector, including samples and photographs, obtained before consent was withdrawn, would
be admissible in any subsequent enforcement action. Withdrawal of consent is tantamount to a
refusal to allow entry and should be treated as discussed in section II.B.3. below, unless the
inspection had progressed far enough to accomplish its purposes.
(3) When Entry is Refused
Barlow's clearly establishes that the owner does have the right to ask for a warrant under
normal circumstances.26 Therefore, refusal to allow entry for inspection purposes will not lead
to civil or criminal penalties if the refusal is based on the inspector's lack of warrant and one of
the exemptions discussed in Part C does not apply. If the owner were to allow the inspector to
enter his establishment only in response to a threat of enforcement liability, it is quite possible
that any evidence obtained in such an inspection would be inadmissible. An inspector may,
however, inform the owner who refused entry that he intends to seek a warrant to compel the
inspection. In any event, when entry is refused, the inspector should leave the premises
immediately and telephone the designated Regional Enforcement Attorney as soon as possible
for further instructions. The Regional Enforcement Attorney should contact the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the district in which the establishment desired to be inspected is located and explain
to the appropriate Assistant United States Attorney the need for a warrant to conduct the
particular inspection. The Regional Attorney should arrange for the United States Attorney to
meet with the inspector as soon as possible. The inspector should bring a copy of the
appropriate draft warrant and affidavits. Samples are provided in the appendix to this
document.
(4) Headquarters Notification
It is essential that the Regions keep Headquarters informed of all refusals to allow entry. The
Regional Attorney should inform the appropriate Headquarters Enforcement Attorney of any
refusals to enter and should send a copy of all papers filed to Headquarters. It is necessary for
Headquarters to monitor refusals and Regional success in obtaining warrants to evaluate the
26 FIFRA inspections are arguably not subject to this aspect of Barlow's. See discussion, p. 5 and 6.
Appendix G - Page 572
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
need for improved procedures and to assess the impact of Barlow's on our compliance
monitoring progress.
C. Areas Where a Right of Warrantless Entry Still Exists
(1) Emergency Situations
In an emergency, where there is no time to get a warrant, a warrantless inspection is
permissible. In Camara v. Municipal Court. 387 U.S. 523 (1967), the Supreme Court states that
"nothing we say today is intended to foreclose prompt inspections, even without a warrant,
that the law has traditionally upheld in emergency situations." Nothing stated in Barlow's
indicates any intention by the court to retreat from this position. The Regions will always have
to exercise considerable judgement concerning whether to secure a warrant when dealing with
an emergency situation. However, if entry is refused during and emergency, the Agency would
need the assistance of the U.S. Marshal to gain entry, and a warrant could probably be obtained
during the time necessary to secure that Marshal's assistance.
An emergency situation would include potential imminent hazard situations, as well as
situations where there is potential for destruction of evidence or where evidence of a
suspected violation may disappear during the time that a warrant is being obtained.
(2) FIFRA Inspection
There are some grounds for interpreting Barlow's as not being applicable to FIFRA inspections.
The Barlow's restrictions do not apply to areas that have been subject to a long standing and
pervasive history of government regulation. An Agency administrative law judge held recently
that even after the Barlow's decision, refusal to allow a warrantless inspection of a FIFRA
regulated establishment properly subjected the owner to civil penalty. IN. Jones & Co.. Inc.. I.F.
& R Docket No. III-121C (July 27, 1978). For the present, however, FIFRA inspections should be
conducted under the same requirements applicable to other enforcement programs.
(3) "Open Fields" and "In Plain View" Situations
Observation by inspectors of things that are in plain view, (i.e., of things that a member of the
public could be in a position to observe) does not required a warrant. Thus, an inspector's
observations from the public area of a plant or even from certain private property not closed to
the public are admissible. Observations made even before presentation of credentials while on
private property which is not normally closed to the public are admissible.
D. Securing a Warrant
There are several general rules for securing warrants. Three documents have to be drafted: (a)
an application for a warrant, (b) an accompanying affidavit, and (c) the warrant itself. Each
document should be captioned with the District Court of jurisdiction, the title of the action, and
the title of the particular document.
The application for a warrant should generally identify the statutes and regulations under which
the Agency is seeking the warrant, and should clearly identify the site or establishment desired
to be inspected (including, if possible, the owner and/or operator of the site). The application
can be a one or two-page document if all of the factual background for seeking the warrant is
Appendix G - Page 573
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
stated in the affidavit, and the application so states. The application should be signed by the
U.S. Attorney or by his Assistant U.S. Attorney.
The affidavits in support of the warrant application are crucial documents. Each affidavit should
consist of consecutively numbered paragraphs, which describe all of the facts that support
warrant issuance. If the warrant is sought in the absence of probable cause, it should recite or
incorporate the neutral administrative scheme which is the basis for inspecting the particular
establishment. Each affidavit should be signed by someone with personal knowledge of all the
facts stated. In cases where entry has been denied, this person would most likely be the
inspector who was denied entry. Note that an affidavit is a sworn statement that must either be
notarized or personally sworn to before the magistrate.
The warrant is a direction to an appropriate official (an EPA inspector, U.S. Marshal or other
Federal officer) to enter a specifically described location and perform specifically described
inspection functions. Since the inspection is limited by the terms of the warrant, it is important
to specify to the broadest extent possible the areas that are intended to be inspected, any
records to be inspected, any samples to be taken, and any articles to be seized, etc. While a
broad warrant may be permissible in civil administrative inspections, a vague or overly broad
warrant will probably not be signed by the magistrate and may prove susceptible to
constitutional challenge. The draft warrant should be ready for the magistrate's signature at the
time of submission via a motion to quash and suppress evidence in Federal District court. Once
the magistrate signs the draft warrant, it is an enforceable document. Either following the
magistrate's signature or on a separate page, the draft warrant should contain a "return of
service" or "certificate of service". This portion of the warrant should indicate upon whom the
warrant was personally served and should be signed and dated by the inspector. As they are
developed, more specific warrant issuance documents will be drafted and submitted to the
Regions.
E. Standards or Bases for the Issuance of Administrative Warrants
The Barlow's decision establishes three standards or bases for the issuance of administrative
warrants. Accordingly, warrants may be obtained upon a showing: 1) of traditional criminal
probable cause, 2) of civil probable cause, or 3) that the establishment was selected for
inspection pursuant to a neutral administrative inspection scheme.
(1) Civil Specific Probable Cause Warrant
Where there is some specific probable cause for issuance of a warrant such as an employee
complaint or competitor's tip, the inspector should be prepared to describe to the U.S. Attorney
in detail the basis for this probable cause.
The basis for probable cause will be stated in the affidavit in support of the warrant. This
warrant should be used when the suspected violation is one that would result in a civil penalty
or other civil action.
Appendix G - Page 574
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(2) Civil Probable Cause Based on a Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme
Where there is no specific reason to think that a violation has been committed, a warrant may
still be issued if they Agency can show that the establishment is being inspected pursuant to a
neutral administrative scheme. As the Supreme Court stated in Barlow's:
"Probable cause in the criminal law sense is not required. For purposes of an
administrative search, such as this, probable cause justifying the issuance of a
warrant may be based not only on specific evidence of an existing violation, but
also on a showing that "reasonable legislative or administrative standards for
conducting an . .. inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular
(establishment)." A warrant showing that a specific business has been chosen for
an OSHA search on the basis of a general administrative plan for the
enforcement of the act derived from neutral sources such as, for example,
dispersion of employees in various type of industries across a given area, and the
desired frequency of searches in any of the lesser divisions of the area, would
protect an employer's Fourth Amendment rights.
Every program enforced by the Agency has such a scheme by which it prioritizes and schedules
its inspections. For example, a scheme under which every permit holder in a given program is
inspected on an annual basis is a satisfactory neutral administrative scheme. Also, a scheme in
which one out of every three known PCB transformer repair shops is inspected on an annual
basis is satisfactory, as long as neutral criteria such as random selection are used to select the
individual establishment to be inspected. Headquarters will prepare and transmit to the
Regions the particular neutral administrative scheme under which each program's inspections
are to be conducted. Inspections not based on specific probable cause must be based on
neutral administrative schemes for a warrant to be issued. Examples of two neutral
administrative schemes are provided in the appendix. (Attachments II and III)
The Assistant U.S. Attorney will request the inspector to prepare and sign an affidavit that
states the facts as he knows them. The statement should include the sequence of events
culminating in the refusal to allow entry and a recitation of either the specific probable cause or
the neutral administrative scheme which led to the particular establishment's selection for
inspection. The Assistant U.S. Attorney will then present a request for an inspection warrant, a
suggested warrant, and the inspector's affidavit to a magistrate or Federal district court judge.27
27 The Barlow's decision states that imposing the warrant requirement on OSHA would not invalidate warrantless search
provisions in other regulatory statutes since many such statutes already "envision resort to Federal court enforcement when
entry is refused". There is thus some question as to whether the existence of a non-warrant Federal court enforcement
mechanism in a statute requires the use of that mechanism rather than warrant issuance. We believe that the Barlow's decision
gives the Agency the choice of whether to proceed through warrant issuance or through an application for an injunction, since
the decision is largely based on the fact that a warrant procedure imposes virtually no burden on the inspecting Agency. In
addition, any Agency could attempt to secure a warrant prior to inspection on an ex parte basis, something not available under
normal injunction proceedings. Several of the acts enforced by the EPA have provisions allowing the Administrator to seek
injunctive relief to assure compliance with the various parts of a particular statute. There may be instances where it would be
more appropriate to seek injunctive relief to gain entry to a facility than to attempt to secure a warrant for inspection, although
at this point we cannot think of any. However, since the warrant process will be far more expeditious than the seeking of an
Appendix G - Page 575
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(3) Criminal Warrants
Where the purpose of the inspection is to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution, the
inspector and the Regional Attorney should request that the U.S. Attorney seek a criminal
warrant under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This requires a specific
showing of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be discovered. Agency policy
on the seeking of criminal warrants has not been affected by Barlow's. The distinction between
administrative inspections and criminal warrant situations is discussed in Section II.A.2.
F. Inspecting with a Warrant
Once the warrant has been issued by the magistrate or judge, the inspector may proceed to the
establishment to commence or continue the inspection. Where there is a high probability that
entry will be refused even with a warrant or where there are threats of violence, the inspector
should be accompanied by a U.S. Marshal when he goes to serve the warrant on the
recalcitrant owner. The inspector should never himself attempt to make any forceful entry of
the establishment. If the owner refuses entry to an inspector holding a warrant but not
accompanied by a U.S. Marshal, the inspector should leave the establishment and inform the
Assistant to the U.S. Attorney and the designated Regional Attorney. They will take appropriate
action such as seeking a citation for contempt. Where the inspector is accompanied by a U.S.
Marshal, the Marshal is principally charged with executing the warrant. Thus, if refusal or threat
to refuse occurs, the inspector should abide by the U.S. Marshal's decision whether it is to
leave, to seek forcible entry, or otherwise.
The inspector should conduct the inspection strictly in accordance with the warrant. If sampling
is authorized, the inspector must be sure to carefully follow all procedures, including the
presentation of receipts for all samples taken. If records or other property are authorized to be
taken, the inspector must receipt the property taken and maintain an inventory of anything
taken from the premises. This inventory will be examined by the magistrate to assure that the
warrant's authority has not been exceeded.
G. Returning the Warrant
After the inspection has been completed, the warrant must be returned to the magistrate.
Whoever executes the warrant, (i.e., whoever performs the inspection), must sign the return of
service form indicating to whom the warrant was served and the date of service. He should
then return the executed warrant to the U.S. Attorney who will formally return it to the
magistrate or judge. If anything has been physically taken from the premises, such as records or
samples, an inventory of such items must be submitted to the court, and the inspector must be
present to certify that the inventory is accurate and complete.
injunction, any decision to seek such an injunction for inspection purposes should be cleared through appropriate Headquarters
staff.
Appendix G - Page 576
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
III. Conclusion
Except for requiring the Agency to formalize its neutral inspection schemes, and for generally
ending the Agency's authority for initiating civil and/or criminal actions for refusal to allow
warrantless inspections, Barlow's should not interfere with EPA enforcement inspections.
Where there is doubt as to how to proceed in any entry case, do not hesitate to call the
respective Headquarters program contact for assistance.
Marvin B. Durning
Appendix G - Page 577
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix H -
EPA's Policy on the Use of
Digital Cameras for Inspections
Appendix H - Page 578
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
I'VI •
UflfTEO STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AtifcNCV
; WASHINGTON, D C 70460
ii s am
«,V:"
' *> EftitV-
i\t n\h ;>r
Nt
<•> :' Jij'it.il v*j«K.*ras m.*j flic
pa^U'diipk* in u>jf- In i'-iviI an! -lunitf llv XaHnsKit Hi'-pn hw \\ ,1 u'srh i-rthis
tnte;v*.(, .u e^m env'J ;mi ntk»rmul v o^K mci'.kknj, '-v^vr.il >'l t'ui; vu*u» r» Uic piovcsa <, t
kU \ '"iupifiu |i»IK ii> i.« *!>,)< 1 ii Viti<»-ui '|Ml»cv »m> tin. iiv ».t dk'suJ i»spfUi>n.s
I «jnt tRO r;n1 Ru-hard 1 upccr o(' R.'tiion KltUlcllcdS h V. 2l*£. l: it'i'OHnrciitiea "Ik'M FraaiicV" Im: usr in (Se-.clupiH.' ManUard uinral »si
pi'iu-odurf> (St H'k1 L (litRii 't»! Ik ricuis' and Minx- kt-.ir ivcinuncndittiitm rri;;ir.iin^
M'kvliot o" <.iit.it,tKamcro^ ur J unpinin.' cquipuKni
,\s uhi the dswv ustu':w, al' uuukl Jj'pr.v alt >s>ur tilu.ii!;!!'. ^niii'itcnis
pirnculiirK onjfniiii^ it«i! •. 1 oftlfc Kc:juirk ucnis nw«c 31. 1 hi> 'tc n .kul* mfh ihc
>!* !.>i (tic pji ii.w :vk-1 in die ln>,|vcsinu hVp.Mi fitc v
itqiuic.s thai •» jtinlcd v^»pv ,»t all ri.lcrci;».*.d i» th\. lns(Htii*>ir itvpyit Ht iiiflu.k'J Vkiili if
W'c ,ippriTirj(e \ .mr irtoiiL'iit;- un wheil-er all pk'ti>s* miiffi he priricJ. all rulcrer.cc.l ph»u>s
mu\i Iv pr.ntcd ki*v pis.•!»»•? tnuM bt pi iiUat.»« uitvihtT -i is ncu>>ar> ?«> nrmi yiji
pru^(U il tin1 violate metlia acctiinp.in i*s :lic mspc.li jji rcp<-rf,
llraft 1 t)!ii.) i«n the 1 sc o| Uiyiial (. iSHKT.ii 1111, ml ImpwdHH^
Vluk'i'l S Alu^inii ' Jiutu>r
< initl.il,IHi' c A Nit -• .mJ MvJiii IVst.-tuiiis Dni.^ii•»,
«¦> SI-I.-.L, iLf« wit . r,*v. f.p t
»• .1' »,,1 v - !.>« ' k i ••• , '•«' *<• '..*»biib25,% Pwit#fi!swi«|
Appendix H - Page 579
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
USE OF DIGITAL CAMERAS FOR INSPECTIONS
STATEMENT OF POLICY
EPA has determined that the use of digital cameras/photographs for documenting civil
investigations is acceptable provided certain requirements related to their use are met.
INTRODUCTION
This document discusses the rationale for support of digital cameras for civil inspections, sets
forth minimum requirements to ensure the credibility of digital photographs (photos) to
document inspections, provides an overview of digital camera technology, suggests good
practices related to digital camera use, and provides recommendations concerning the
selection of digital cameras and supporting peripheral equipment.
REQUIREMENTS
Because digital photography is a somewhat new technology, taking a few precautions will assist
in ensuring the credibility of the digital photos. Further discussion of the technology and
technical considerations related to use of digital cameras and recommendations for "Best
Practices" are provided later in this document, but certain steps are essential to ensuring digital
photo credibility. The following are minimum requirements which must be met when using
digital photographs to document EPA civil investigations:
1. The digital photo must be a fair representation of the object/scene at the relevant time
and must not be manipulated as to be indistinguishable from the original image.
2. When the photo is used as evidence, the person testifying must be able to verify the
authenticity of the image, how it was acquired, its relevance to the case and how it
corroborates testimony as to issues which may be disputed in the case.
3. A digital camera with enough resolution to produce a photo equivalent to a 35 mm print
or a Polaroid must be used. (At least 2.1 mega-pixel resolution is recommended to
produce good quality 5" X 7"pictures, although resolution necessary is dependent on
subject matter and final use. Please see the Basic Technical Information Section for
more detail).
4. Equipment must be available which will allow the secure use and storage of the digital
photo images. (More detail is provided in the Basic Technical Information Section).
5. There must be a standard operating procedure (SOP) in place regarding digital camera
use which includes guidance on: properly using digital cameras, capturing the digital
images, securing the original images captured, and procedures on copying, storing,
transferring, and handling of the "original" images. (Additional "Best Practices"
recommendations for SOP elements are provided later in this document.) Each Regional
or State office with inspectional authority which decides to use digital cameras should
develop its own SOP governing their use.
Appendix H - Page 580
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
6. A Photo Log (see attached example) must be kept for each inspection which is a record
of: the identity of the photographer; the identity/type of camera used; the date, time,
location, and conditions under which the photo image was taken; the name of the
facility and the EPA facility registration system (FRS) number, (or any available EPA
Facility Identification number), if known; and a brief description of the picture. The
Photo Log must also include a record of the date, time, and identity of the person
transferring the images from one storage media to another, and the date, time, type of
change, and identity of the person making any change to an image which will be used as
evidence. (No change should be made to the "original" image. Enhancements must be
done only on a copy. Each change should be saved as a separate image file and
documented so that all enhancements can be reconstructed, if necessary.)
7. Original images must be saved to alternate storage media to create an "archival
original" as soon as possible after image capture. This "archival original" must be labeled
as such and kept secure and any enhancements needed should be made only to a copy.
NEVER EDIT THE ORIGINAL OR ARCHIVAL ORIGINAL (Ideally a read-only Compact Disk
(CD-R) should be used as the "archival original" but if a CD-R or a CD- "burner" is not
available, a floppy disk may be used for the "original" copy. If a CD-R is not used, an
option is to use cyclic redundancy check software to verify the images. See discussion in
the Basic Technical Information Section for more detail.)
8. Access to the "original" images must be limited and a Chain of Custody which identifies
anyone having access must be maintained from the time the picture is taken until the
case is closed. (See attached).
9. When mailing the "original" via postal mail, it must be placed in a jacket, pouch or
equivalent with a custody seal. The same procedures used for mailing samples must be
used with the "original" to ensure its integrity.
10. If copies of the photos are given to a facility, a record of what has been given must be
kept. This record may be a list of the photos noted as part of the field notes, a separate
photo list, or a separate Photo Log. The record must identify and describe the photos.
11. The Photo Log and printed copies of the digital photo images which are referenced in
the report with corresponding identifying information from the Photo-Log must be
attached to the inspection report. If printing is not feasible, the Photo-Log with the
properly labeled storage media containing the "original" digital images must accompany
the inspection report.
Background Information
Appendix H - Page 581
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Rationale for Policy
Changes in photographic technology have made digital cameras common-place. Digital cameras
offer many advantages over traditional cameras and could soon become more widely used than
traditional film cameras. Many law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, have recognized
the utility of digital imaging in field applications. Because the use of digital cameras and photos
is becoming so common-place for enforcement purposes, and because it is a somewhat new
technology, it could meet with resistance and challenges when used in case support, if proper
precautions are not taken. Provided proper steps are taken to protect the chain of custody from
the time of image capture until the case is closed and the records are archived, a photo taken
by a digital camera is as much an "original" as one taken by traditional means.
• Standard operating procedures which ensure the authenticity and document the
chain of custody of the pictures are key to the defensibility of use of digital photos
for case support. Just as in cases using other photographic evidence, the witness will
need to identify the scene; explain how he/she is familiar with the scene; and
establish that the picture is a fair representation of the scene at the relevant time.
Advantages of Digital Camera Use
Digital photos offer the user a fast and efficient way to collect documentation of visual
observances during an inspection, such as to document violations observed, or to convey a
complex scene by e-mailing the pictures to others off-site and getting advice regarding
appropriate actions. Digital photos can be reviewed at the site to be certain that important
details are captured and notes can be corroborated. Any poor quality pictures can be deleted
and shot again at the site before scene conditions change. Inspectors have reported that many
facilities prefer the digital images and are more amenable to this type of photo being taken,
particularly if they are given the opportunity to review them at the conclusion of the visit.
Sharing the images at the conclusion of an inspection may provide facilities with a greater
comfort level regarding what the inspection has revealed, particularly in terms of "proprietary
information." This may result in fewer claims of confidential business information because
unnecessary images containing proprietary or sensitive (i.e., military or government)
information could be deleted at the scene. In addition, digital cameras can be used in unique
settings when special detail is needed, as, for example, by taking a picture through a
microscope using its lens as the enlarger.
Because digital photos can be stored as data files on a computer disk, hard drive, or CD, storage
requires less space and the photos can be easily catalogued and quickly retrieved using a simple
search query. Although digital images can be developed commercially, if the necessary
equipment is available, in-house processing can offer some advantages. For example, there may
be a security advantage by allowing control of the image from capture through use. When time
is an essential element, hard copy photos can be produced quickly for review; and inexpensive
copies can be produced when fast information-sharing is critical. Also, like traditional photos,
digital photos can be enhanced and edited, but much faster and more easily. Because the
processing generates less waste, digital photos are also more environmentally friendly than
film.
Appendix H - Page 582
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Basic Technical Information Related to Digital Camera Use
Digital and film photography share many similarities. Both create an image through use of a
light-sensitive medium. In the case of digital cameras, light falls on a grid of detectors known as
a charge coupled device, or CCD, and produces a pattern of electrical charges that are
measured, converted to numbers and stored. Each value in the grid corresponds to a picture
element, (also known as a pixel) in the digital image28. The electrical output of the CCD is sent
to a converter that changes the image to a digital output which is then stored in the camera as
a computer data file with each file representing a different photograph29. Following is a
discussion of some important factors relevant to digital camera use.
Resolution
Digital camera resolution is the amount of sharpness or detail in the image and is dependent on
the number of pixels in the image. This is generally determined by the number of pixels across
the width and height of the CCD. Pixel count is established by multiplying these numbers.
Therefore, it is important to know the maximum CCD resolution (total number of pixels in a
camera's sensor) in order to know the film equivalent capability of the digital camera. This is
generally stated as "x" mega pixels. For example, 1280 x 960 pixels would give the film
resolution of a 5" x 7" print and 1600 x 1200 pixels would give the film resolution of an average
8" x 10" print. A digital camera with this resolution as its maximum would be in the 2.0 mega
pixel range. Although an 8" x 10" image from a camera having 2.0 mega pixels of maximum
resolution could be further enlarged, the quality of the photo would be degraded.
Digital cameras are available with a wide range of CCD resolution from around 1.0 mega pixels
to 6.0+. Generally, low end cameras have a resolution of 1.0 mega pixels and cost around $100.
These would probably be insufficient for all but the most basic of photographs.
The next CCD resolution level is about 2.0 mega pixels. This would allow for a picture at fine
resolution roughly equivalent to an average 8" x 10" 35mm print taken by a conventional
camera. If further enlargement is required, some image loss will occur. Cameras in this range
currently cost around $300 with cost differences primarily depending on the image storage
capacity and optical zoom capability.
For good quality, multi-purpose use, CCD resolution in the 3.0+ mega pixel range is needed. The
higher the mega pixel level, the more and larger images with high resolution can be stored. This
is important where larger photos may be necessary and where greater detail is important. It is
also important if more than a few high resolution pictures are going to be needed during a
session use. Cameras with this CCD resolution currently cost from $400 up.
Storage Media/Memory
A digital camera uses and/or contains random access memory (RAM) to store the images. When
RAM is used up, it must be restored in order to take more pictures. There are currently several
28 Erik C. Berg, "Legal Ramifications of Digital Imaging in Law Enforcement", Forensic Science Communications,
October 2000.
29 Penney Azcarate, "Digital Imaging Technology and the Prosecutor", Prosecutor, January/February 2000.
Appendix H - Page 583
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
types of storage media used to record digital photos. The most common ones are Smart Media,
Compact Flash and Stick memory. Additionally, some manufacturers use a standard 3.5" floppy
to store images (although this technology is becoming outdated). Floppy disk cameras typically
create lower resolution images than card-based cameras to keep file sizes small enough to fit
on the floppy disk. Floppy disks can store 1.4 Mega Bytes (MB) compared to 8 -16 MB on a
standard memory card (with expanded ones available now up to 5 gigabytes). Also available
now is another card-sized storage media, an IBM "Microdrive," which fits the Compact Flash
Type II card slot and can store up to 1 gigabyte of data when used with a compatible camera.
Regardless of the storage media used by the camera, pictures can be downloaded and stored
either on the computer's hard drive, or on a compact disk (CD) if the computer is equipped with
a CD "burner."
The number of photos which can be taken per session is a function of the resolution selected
and the amount of memory required. This is somewhat dependent on the file format used.
Most digital cameras use a file format which "compresses" the image so that more pictures can
be stored on the storage media. There are two file types used to store the digital images on the
storage media. A "lossless" file is one where no data is lost. Two file format types frequently
used by digital cameras to capture "lossless" images are TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) and
RAW. Lossless files or lossless compressed files tend to be quite large. Because these images
require so much memory, to store more than one or two digital images in this format requires a
very high capacity (and expensive) storage media, so this is primarily used only by professional
photographers using high-end equipment.
Another file type in which some data may be lost is known as a "lossy" file. Images stored this
way take up less much less room but may lose some data or image quality. However, the
resultant "loss" may not be significant to over-all picture quality. One type of "lossy" file format
that is currently used by most digital cameras is a standard file format known as JPEG (Joint
Photographic Experts Group). This file format is designed to address the known limitations of
the human eye and was named for the committee that devised and wrote the standard. At the
highest JPEG resolution, even though there may be some small loss of image quality, it would
not be obvious to the human eye. (This is less true for pictures of things like signs or other very
hard-edged objects). When an image is captured by a digital camera using this file format, JPEG
automatically compresses the file, allowing for a greater number of pictures to be stored on the
storage media. Generally, a 3.1 Mega Pixel (MP) camera using a 16 Mega Byte (MB) storage
medium at high resolution could store approximately only two TIFF files, but could store at least
12 JPEG photos with no noticeable image loss. However, if JPEG images are repeatedly
compressed and decompressed (such as by repeated viewing before saving) or if the picture
needs to be enlarged significantly, some noticeable image loss may occur.
Most digital cameras come with built-in picture file identifier (which assigns a unique number
to each picture), date, and time stamps. This is an important feature for establishing chain of
custody records.
Appendix H - Page 584
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Power Supply
Because they are electronic, digital cameras require significantly more power than other types.
All or most of their functions are electronic, so batteries can drain quickly. This can be true even
when batteries left in the camera are not in use. Repeated viewing of images through the
camera's liquid crystal display (LCD) screen can rapidly deplete batteries. This is particularly
significant for digital cameras because battery depletion can cause the camera settings to be
lost, in addition to being problematic if the power suddenly disappears when needed during
use.
Most digital cameras take AA batteries. There are several types of these: nickel metal hydride
(NiMH, rechargeable), nickel cadmium (NiCd, rechargeable), lithium (non-rechargeable), and, of
course, alkaline (non-rechargeable). Of these, the NiMH is the most economic because of their
basic cost, rechargeability, length of charge, and long service life. (They are also
environmentally preferable to the nickel cadmium batteries which are gradually being phased
out). The lithium batteries are useful as cold-weather back-ups. Having extra batteries sets is
essential when using digital cameras for anything more than a few quick shots.
Other Technical Considerations
Optical Zoom
Another factor affecting picture quality, particularly for close-ups or distance, is optical zoom.
Optical zoom is "true zoom" or telephoto, which makes the image appear closer without losing
detail; digital zoom is really just built in image enlargement with some resulting loss of photo
detail. Cameras with a higher degree of optical zoom allow for a greater degree of flexibility in
use without loss of image quality.
Photo Storage and Printing
Storage and printing are other important considerations for use of digital cameras. The
computer is most often the mechanism used to store and print digital photos. To transfer
images from the digital camera's memory to the computer, the camera is connected to the
computer using either a serial port or the Universal Serial Bus (USB) port (except when the
camera uses a standard 3.5-inch floppy disk). Most computers have a USB port that simply
connects to the camera with a plug-in cable and images can be downloaded to the hard drive. If
a USB port is not available, a card reader can be connected to the printer port to transfer
images to the computer and the images then can be stored on the computer's hard drive.
However, if the hard drive were to fail, the images could be lost, so back-up storage is
necessary. Some cameras are also equipped to transfer the images directly from the camera to
the computer. The disadvantage of this system, however, is that if the transfer is interrupted
some images could be lost.
If a computer is equipped with a CD "burner," the images can be stored on a read-only CD (CD-
R). This has several advantages. Images stored to a read-only CD-R are created by permanently
altering the disc with a laser light beam. CD writers cannot delete laser marks, so the images
can be stored without alteration and any alteration would be detectable. (This is only true for
Appendix H - Page 585
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CD-R, not CD-RW (read-write)). The "original" images could be stored this way to form an
unalterable archive and it is feasible to store large numbers of images in a small amount of
space. (A typical CD can store hundreds of images). Both CD burners and CD-Rs are now
economically feasible with CD burners costing in $175 range and CD-Rs costing a dollar or less
each. Once the images are archived to a CD-R, copies of the unaltered "originals" can be made
on a CD-RW and any necessary enhancements, such as improving contrast or "cropping" can be
done on the copies and properly noted in a photo log for future reference. (Each change should
be saved as a separate image file and documented so that all enhancements can be
reconstructed, if necessary).
An alternative to using the CD-R is to store the images on floppy disks and use commercially
available software to perform a "Cyclic Redundancy Check" (CRC) on the stored images. The
software performs a calculation that generates a unique number which can be checked later
against the stored data to ensure that they match, indicating that the data also matches. NEIC
uses MARESWARE software (see websites list) for this function.
Images can be printed at the same time they are downloaded, or printed as needed. For truly
photographic quality prints, a commercial developer is recommended, particularly if large
pictures are required. (Commercial developers have access to a different process that can
provide better color and resolution than that afforded by in-house processing). For in-house
viewing or most general purposes, a good quality color ink-jet printer using archival inks is
recommended, particularly if the photos will be stored for a long period of time. For high
quality images, premium glossy photo paper will give a great degree of color accuracy, even
under magnification. For general purposes, plain paper, photo quality ink-jet paper, premium
photo paper, etc. can be selected depending on the necessary quality outcome.
Computer Requirements
A computer has two types of memory, hard disk storage and Random Access Memory (RAM).
The computer's hard disk drive is the memory used to store the digital images before
transferring them to another storage medium, such as a CD-R. A high-capacity hard drive is
needed if many digital images will be "down-loaded" at one time. A hard disk drive should not
be filled to more than 70% of its maximum capacity in order to not cause performance
deterioration. A computer with at least a 10 gigabyte hard drive is recommended at a
minimum, but the amount of hard drive memory needed will depend on what other programs
are resident which use memory, and how many pictures will be down-loaded from the camera's
storage media before being transferred to CD-R or other permanent storage.
Computer speed is another consideration. Speed is normally measured in millions of cycles per
second or MHz. Speed affects how fast the digital images can be down-loaded or edited. A
speed of at least 233 MHz is recommended, although computers are now available at speeds of
2000 MHz (2Ghz).
Guidelines for Ensuring Credibility of Digital Photos
As long as the digital photo is a fair representation of the object/scene at the relevant time, has
not been manipulated to be indistinguishable from the "original" image, and corroborates the
Appendix H - Page 586
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
witness's testimony as to the issues disputed in a case, it should provide the necessary
documentation to support a case. It is up to the witness who is testifying to demonstrate the
authenticity of the image and to explain what the image shows, how it was acquired, and its
relevance to the case. This will support the authenticity of the images and the testimony of the
witness.
Because digital images are easier to manipulate than traditional 35 mm or Polaroid
photographs, critical to ensuring the credibility of digital photos is having a Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) in place that establishes the proper security and record-keeping procedures
for taking, storing and documenting digital images. Inspectors using digital cameras during field
inspections must have and use a standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding digital camera
use. Each Regional or State office with inspectional authority which decides to use digital
cameras should develop its own SOP governing their use. The SOP should include: guidance on
properly using digital cameras, securing the original images captured, copying the captured
images and using a chain of custody (COC). If the digital images captured during inspections are
used in civil cases as evidence, inspectors may need to defend the images in court, and the use
of an SOP may increase the validity of the images as authentic evidence. In addition to the
minimum requirements detailed previously, the following are "Best Practices"
recommendations for items which should be included in Regional or State SOPs.
Best Practices
1. Have the necessary equipment to capture, store, and distribute digital images. Use a
digital camera with the required resolution to get pictures that are equivalent to a 35
mm print or a Polaroid. At least 2.1 mega-pixel resolution is recommended to produce
good quality 5" X 7" pictures. Other equipment is needed to store, print, and reproduce
digital images. Necessary equipment includes but is not limited to: computer (hard
drive) with sufficient memory; electronic storage media (for example, Memory Stick,
Compact Flash, Smart Card, CD, and/or floppy disk); USB cable; card reader (optional);
battery and backup battery(ies); printer; and authentication software (optional). Before
digital cameras are used for field activities, all the equipment should be available that is
needed to capture images, store the images, produce unalterable "original" copies of
the images, produce backup copies of the images, print the images, and any other
equipment that may be required depending on the activity for which the camera will be
used. This includes a computer with sufficient memory for down-loading images to the
hard-drive before transferring them to the archival media.)
2. Be familiar with the camera and able to use it properly for capturing images during field
activities. Anyone issued a digital camera should become familiar with its operation by
reading the instruction manual of the camera. A person should know how to store an
image; the capacity of the storage media being used; how to transfer images from one
storage media to another; how and what is needed to print good quality images; how to
use the different settings (resolution choice, digital zoom, flash, etc.) in the camera; and
the camera's limitations (weather, zooming). Digital cameras are susceptible to damage
from extreme temperature, strong magnetic fields, dust, noise, and/or vibrations. Note
that digital images are not damaged by X-ray machines such as those found at security
Appendix H - Page 587
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
check points. It is recommended that digital cameras and their components NOT be left
in vehicles where they will be subjected to extreme heat or cold. Efforts are to be taken
to prevent theft, loss, or damage. It is very important to be aware of the limitations of
digital cameras. An inspector should refer to the camera's manual to be familiar with
the optimum operating conditions of the camera. (Note: it may be useful to have a
conventional camera and film available as "back-up" in case of unforeseen
circumstances).
3. Verify the digital camera's date, time and other applicable settings. All digital images are
electronically inscribed with the date and time the image was taken and with the image
number. This information automatically becomes a permanent part of the electronic
image file and usually can be imprinted on the image when it is printed to hard copy.
This information can be viewed through the camera. Before taking any pictures at a
facility or site, the inspector should make sure that the camera's setting for the date,
time and calendar are correct, so it reflects the correct date and time on the digital
image. Depending on the camera, any additional settings in the camera should be
calibrated and set to optimize the camera's capabilities according to the conditions in
which it will be used (for example: resolution, zoom, lighting, file folders, and so forth).
Note that the camera resolution setting should be high enough to produce the
equivalent of at least an 8" X 10" traditional 35 mm print, particularly if detail is
important to the image. Settings will vary depending on the camera, so refer to your
camera's manual.
4. Take into account power considerations and/or limitations: Batteries must be checked
at least weekly when not used. At least one extra set of Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH)
rechargeable batteries should be taken by the inspector to the field and a charger to
recharge the batteries at the end of the day. Recommendations and instructions
accompanying the chargers and camera should be followed. When changing the
batteries always change the entire set. Batteries of different types should not be mixed.
The cameras will operate on AA alkaline30 batteries. Never try to recharge alkaline
batteries. Never mix alkaline batteries and rechargeable batteries in the camera. Lithium
batteries are a good option as back up batteries (especially for cold weather).
5. Ensure sufficient storage media is available for each inspection and clearly identify
pictures captured for each session. The storage media may be any of the following
(depending on the type of camera): compact flash, memory stick, smart media, compact
disc, and/or floppy disc. In situations where more than one incident or case is to be
worked closely together, images from more than one incident may be captured on the
same electronic storage card. If images from more than one incident need to be
captured on a single storage card, you may do so by inserting a "blank" image after the
"end card" image. It is recommended that an "end-card" image be labeled and
photographed before starting a new session. Images from one incident should not be
30 While cameras will operate on alkaline batteries, they will last a very short time and cause the camera to
respond slowly. Alkaline batteries should only be used in an emergency situation.
Appendix H - Page 588
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
split between two electronic storage cards unless a large quantity of images requires
two cards or the storage media does not have enough memory to store all the images
from one inspection. The different disks, floppy disks, and/or cards should be
sequentially numbered and labeled with the name of the facility and date taken and
should indicate what pictures from the inspection are contained in each.
6. Transfer the digital images to another storage medium to make an "archival original."
An "archival original" should be made so that the storage media can be re-used and to
secure the digital images from loss or tampering. To be certain that images are not lost
in the transfer process, first transfer the images from the camera's electronic storage
media card or floppy disk onto the hard drive of your computer. Make sure the
computer hard drive has enough memory to store the pictures. Then, verify that the
images have been successfully transferred. An "archival original" should be made from
the hard drive image files. The original copy should NOT be changed in any way. The
archival original should be labeled with the time, date, name of facility/site and filed in a
secure location, and should have a chain of custody that contains the names of people
with access to it. (See example, attached). At least one additional copy should be made
as a back-up copy. This copy may be edited if the image needs to be enhanced. Any
changes made to a picture must be noted on the photo log and inspection report.
Originals should be labeled as such and copies should be identified as copies.
There are two alternatives in current use for creating a secure archival original. One
is to transfer the images to a CD-R (read-only). The other is to use commercially
available soft-ware to create a verifiable copy. In either case, the transfer should be
documented in the Photo Log. The following is a brief description of each
alternative.
A). If your computer is equipped with a "CD-burner," after down-loading the images
to the hard drive, copy them onto a CD-R. A CD-R can be used to make an
unalterable archival copy. This CD-R will be the "original" document of the digital
images (similar to the negatives of a conventional camera). If changes need to be
made to the images (such as enlargement, cropping or contrast), they can be made
on another, writeable CD. Any change should be replicable and should be
documented in the Photo Log.
B). A floppy disk also may be used as the storage media for the archival "original."
(Note: floppy disks do not have as much memory as CD-Rs, so more than one floppy
disk may be needed to store the images). If a floppy disk is used, it should be
changed to the "read only" position when it is full and a custody seal should be used.
When using a floppy disk as the archival original storage medium, the "Cyclic
Redundancy Check" (CRC) software should be used to ensure verifiable images.
7. Use proper procedures for storing archival original images. The archival CD "Read Only"
version (or other archival original storage media) of the digital images should be stored
in a secure place with limited access. When the archival original is filed, a log should be
Appendix H - Page 589
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
kept and anyone accessing the archival original should sign off before using it. The
archival original should be labeled and a proper chain of custody form should
accompany it. (A sample chain of custody form may be found as an attachment to this
document). It is up to each Region to use the archiving method that best suits them.
Each Region should use a method that follows the guidelines for the applicable program.
The archival original may be stored with the case file and/or in a separate area
designated to store and archive all digital photo originals. Again, proper labeling and
chain of custody procedures should be used at all times. Finally, it is very important that
if a digital image is considered Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the facility,
inspectors must have clearance to handle the information as such and that all CBI
procedures must be followed.
Recommendations for Selecting/Using a Digital Camera
There is a wide selection of digital cameras available now from the very basic "point and shoot"
to the elaborate professional models with various types of storage media and many other
options. In selecting a digital camera for use to support inspection documentation, the typical
use conditions should first be considered, but potential extremes should also be considered in
order to select the best digital camera for the anticipated use conditions. It should be
remembered that traditional 35mm or Polaroid cameras may be the best choice for some
scenes/conditions, such as where vibration, dust, or strong magnetic fields may be present or
where a level of detail is desired which cannot be achieved using a digital camera.
For use in general field conditions and for average level of detail photos, a digital camera should
have at least a 2.1 mega pixel capability. (Higher mega pixel capacity is important if photos will
need to be enlarged to more than 8' x 10" or where a high degree of detail is needed). The
camera should have external memory storage media capable of identifying each photo
separately; have date/time stamp capability; and have a USB or card reader port so that images
can be down-loaded to a computer hard drive. The amount of light present in most use
situations should also be considered to select a camera with the appropriate ISO sensitivity. It is
also helpful if the camera provides for resolution selection and has optical zoom capability.
(This is useful for taking pictures from a distance without losing image quality. Digital zoom will
enlarge the image, but some detail may be lost). A camera with these basic features should cost
about $300. These are basic recommendations, but camera selection will be dependent on the
Region/Program's particular needs and resources. Most cameras come with at least 8 MB of
external storage memory. Additional external storage media cards holding 32 MB cost between
$23 - $34 each, depending on the type. Nickel metal hydride(NIMH) batteries cost about $5 for
a pack of four or $30 for a pack of four with a re-charger. A lithium battery pack is around $10.
For whatever camera is selected, there must also be sufficient computer speed and hard drive
capability. At a minimum, a computer should have at least a 10 gigabyte hard drive with enough
memory available to fit the number of pictures that will be down-loaded from the camera's
storage media during a session. Computer speed is less important but will impact how quickly
the transfer can occur and any copying or editing that will take place. A minimum of 233MHz is
Appendix H - Page 590
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
recommended for the average digital camera storage medium of 16 MB. A CD "burner" is also
highly recommended for storing "archival originals." CD "burners" currently cost around $175
and are included in many newer computers.
A good ink-jet printer is recommended for printing copies of the photos to include with the
inspection report. Epson makes printers specifically designed for this task but there are many
other printers available as well. They cost between $150 - $500, depending on print speed and
resolution.
References/Additional Information
1. Berg, Erik, "Legal Ramifications of Digital Imaging In Law Enforcement," Forensic Science
Communications. Vol 2, No. 4, October 2000, available at
www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2000/berg.htm
2. Azcarate, Penney, "Digital Imaging Technology and the Prosecutor," Prosecutor,
January/February 2000, (34 FEB Prosecutor 26)
3. "Guidelines for Field Applications of Imaging Technologies," Scientific Working Group on
Imaging Technologies (SWGIT), Version 2.0, June 8, 1999, Forensic Science
Communications. Vol. 2, No. 1, January 20000, available at
www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2000/swgit.htm
4. "Definitions and Guidelines for Use of Imaging Technologies in the Criminal Justice
System," Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies, Version 2.2, December 7,
2000, Forensic Science Communications. Vol. 3, No. 3, July 2001, available at
www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/july2001/swgit.htm
5. Camp, William W., "Practical Uses of Digital Photography In Litigation," ATLA Annual
Convention Reference Materials, July 2000, Volume 2, Attorney's Information Exchange
Group (AIEG).
6. Keane, James I., "585 Prestidigitalization: Magic, Evidence and Ethics In Forensic Digital
Photography," Ohio Northern Law Review, 1999, Twenty-second Annual Law Review
Symposium Courtroom 2000: Technology and the Legal System Symposium Article (25
Ohio N U I. Rev.585).
7. Carbine, James E. and McLain, Lynn, "Proposed Model Rules Governing the Admissibility
of Computer-Generated Evidence," January 1999, Santa Clara Computer and High
Technology Law Journal (15 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech L.J. 1).
8. Lynch, Peter A. "Digital Cameras and the Fire Investigator: A Trap for the Unwary?" ,
Cozen & O'Connor, San Diego Regional Office available at
www.interfire.org/features/camera.htm
Appendix H - Page 591
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
9. "Digital Imaging Issues and Image Verification Presentation" - Waynesboro VA Police
Department, Investigations Division, at wwwl.br.cc.va.us/wpd
10. Staggs, Steven, "The Admissibility of Digital Photographs In Court," available at
www.crime-scene-investigator.net/admissibilityofd igital.html
11. Herbert, Rusty and Gigger, Richard, (EPA Region 6), "Background Information for Digital
and Photographic Imaging," and "Draft Region 6 Standard Operating Procedure Digital
Camera Imaging," June 2001.
Websites:
1. www.digital-camerastore.com/digitalinfor2.htm - good basic info and lists of
cameras/prices.
2. www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/advice.htm - "Advice for first-time digital camera users" -
good overview of digital camera use with links to more information
3. www.cooking-italian-food.com/photography.htm - "Digital Camera Guide -
Photography Definitions and Terminology," - discussion of resolution, optical/digital
zoom, ISO, storage media, and other basic terminology.
4. "An Introduction to Image Compression" - www.debugmode.com/imagecmp/
5. "Resolution, File Size & Image Quality" - www.haroldsphoto.com/res.htm
6. "Frequently Asked Questions on Digital Photography" - www.photodrive.ru/faq6_e.htm
7. Maresware Forensic and Analysis Software - a list of commercial forensic software,
including cyclic redundancy check.
www.dmares.com/maresware/DOCS/press release.htm
8. "Error Detection and Correction" - description of Cyclic Redundancy Check -
www, linktionary.com/e/error. html
9. "Understanding Cyclic Redundancy Check - http://4d.com/acidoc/CMU/CMU79909.htm
a description of how the CRC error detection system algorithm works
10. photoalley.com - on-line digital camera "store"
Appendix H - Page 592
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Attachment #1
DIGITAL IMAGE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR "ARCHIVAL" ORIGINAL IMAGES (Sample Form)
IMAGE RECORD
P H OTOG RAP H E R(sign atu re)
INCIDENT NUMBER/Facility EPA Identification Number
DATE PHOTOS TAKEN
IMAGE NUMBERS FOR THIS INCIDENT
LOCATION(S) PHOTOS TAKEN
THESE IMAGES HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED, ALTERED OR MANIPULATED IN
ANY WAY.
COMMENTS
SIGNATURE OF PHOTOGRAPHER
ACCESS RECORD
Name
Organization/Division
Phone Number
Signature
Appendix H - Page 593
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Attachment #2
Example Facility Photograph Log
1. Photographer
2. Facility Name
3. Facility EPA Identification Number (if available)
4. Type of Camera Used
5. Digital recording media
6. All digital photos were copied by
7. All Digital Photos were copied to
8. Original Copy is stored in:
(i.e. Laptop, PC hard drive (or zip disk).
At the end of each day, digital photos were downloaded to a zip drive disk, then transferred to
the hard-drive, all by Subsequently they were transferred by to a CD-R. No changes
were made in the original image files prior to storage on the CD-R.)
9. Log
Date
Time
(camera
recorded
time)
Photo
Filename
(MVC-
xxx.jpg)
Modifications
made to digital
image (if any)
Description of Image
5/21/01
0909
001
Facility: <90-day storage area at Power House
#1
0915
002
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, within tank
truck unloading pad containment area at
northwest corner of #1 steam plant
0915
003
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, within tank
truck unloading pad containment area at
northwest corner of #1 steam plant
0921
004
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, within Tank
121 containment dike
0929
005
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, fly ash
drumming area on south side of steam plant
0932
006
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, residue
receiving manifold area on first floor of steam
plant
0936
007
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, residue
receiving manifold area on first floor of steam
plant
0942
008
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, adjacent to
boiler on second floor of steam plant
0945
009
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, adjacent to
boiler on second floor of Steam Plant
Appendix H - Page 594
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Date
Time
(camera
recorded
time)
Photo
Filename
(MVC-
xxx.jpg)
Modifications
made to digital
image (if any)
Description of Image
1019
010
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, Bldg. 3,
Laboratory, room 1 (hood area)
1023
011
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, Bldg. 3,
Laboratory, room A (semi-volatile hood area)
1027
012
Facility: Satellite accumulation area, Bldg. 3,
Laboratory, room A (volatile hood area)
Appendix H - Page 595
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix I -
EPA's Memorandum On
Deficiency Notice Guidance
Appendix I - Page 596
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, d.c. 20460
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT: "Deficiency Notice" Implementation to Improve Quality Assurance in NPDES
Permittee Self-Monitoring Activities
FROM: Director, Enforcement Division (EN-338)
TO: Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I - X
Surveillance and Analysis Division Directors, Regions I - X
Director, National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver
The Enforcement Divisions and the Surveillance and Analysis Divisions in several
Regions have developed a form, called a Deficiency Notice, which their inspectors
issue at the end of compliance inspections. This Deficiency Notice alerts NPDES
permittees to problems in their routine self-monitoring activities. On June 11, 1979,
the Office of Water Enforcement proposed that all the Regional offices adopt this
form along with the Guidance for its use, and asked for your comments on this
proposal. The Deficiency Notice and Guidance, which are attached, reflect your
comments.
We have ordered the Deficiency Notice Forms, which will be printed on no-carbon-
required paper and will be color coded in pads to correlate with the NPDES
Compliance Inspection Form (EPA 3560-3). You may reproduce the attached form
for use until you receive these forms.
The Deficiency Notice was designed so that State NPDES programs might easily use
it. However, EPA cannot now sanction its use by the States since the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not authorized the form for non-Federal use.
We will attempt to get OMB approval.
Since the Deficiency Notice provides a swift and simple mechanism for responding to
deficiencies in self-monitoring data, I believe that its use will substantially improve
the performance of wastewater treatment facilities without creating additional
resource burdens or enforcement problems. If you have any questions about the
Deficiency Notice or its use, please do not hesitate to call Gary Polvi of my staff at
755-0994.
J. Brian Molloy
Attachments
Appendix I - Page 597
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DEFICIENCY NOTICE GUIDANCE
Purpose
The purpose for using the Deficiency Notice is to provide a swift and simple method for
improving the quality of data from NPDES self-monitoring activities. Since an inspector may
issue a Deficiency Notice during any NPDES compliance inspection to alert the permittee to
either existing or potential problems in self-monitoring, its receipt prompts the permittee to
quickly take corrective action, as close as possible to the time the inspector perceives the
problem.
Scope
The Deficiency Notice is a tool for use in conjunction with any type of EPA NPDES compliance
inspection (i.e., compliance evaluation, sampling, performance audit, biomonitoring, etc.),
during which the inspector identifies problems with self-monitoring that warrant response.
The Deficiency Notice and Guidance were designed so that State NPDES compliance monitoring
programs could also easily use them. (Note the use of the term "regulatory authority"
throughout this guidance.) However, EPA cannot yet sanction the States' use of this form
because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet approved the form for non-
Federal use.
Use of the Deficiency Notice does not apply to a wide range of possible permit violations. It is to
be used by the inspector to alert permittees to deficiencies in their self-monitoring activities
only. The enforcement office of the regulatory authority (i.e., the EPA Regional Enforcement
Division or its State counterpart), not the inspector, will continue to handle violations relative
to compliance schedules or effluent limitations.
Form Description
The Deficiency Notice (see attachment) is one page long and is for use in conjunction with the
standard EPA Compliance Inspection Form (EPA 3560-3 September, 1977). The reverse side of
the Notice contains general instructions to inspectors for completing the form. The regulatory
authority using the form may add other specific instructions that do not conflict with this
guidance.
The form has four sections: (1) basic facility data, (2) deficiencies, (3) comments, and (4)
inspector identification. These sections contain individual spaces where the inspector during an
inspection can log deficiencies in the following self-monitoring activities: (1) monitoring
location, (2) flow measurement, (3) sample collection/holding time, (4) sample preservation, (5)
test procedures, (6) record keeping, (7) other self-monitoring deficiencies (i.e., sampling
frequency, instrument calibration, etc.). Since the existing Compliance Inspection Form (which
inspectors now complete) includes questions and answers relating to the above seven
activities, inspectors should not need much additional time to complete this Deficiency Notice.
Appendix I - Page 598
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Administrative Procedures
With few exceptions (see March 7,1977 EMS Guide), the handling and tracking of Deficiency
Notices will follow the normal EPA Enforcement Management System (EMS) procedures.
Inspectors can issue the Deficiency Notice to a permittee immediately following a compliance
inspection if they discover any permit deficiencies which the Notice includes. Under unusual
circumstances inspectors may delay issuing a Deficiency Notice until after conferring with other
officials of the regulatory authority.
EMS requires the offices responsible for inspections and for NPDES enforcement to jointly
establish a policy delineating the procedure for the permittee to appropriately respond to the
Deficiency Notice. In the EPA Regions, the Directors of the Enforcement Division and the
Surveillance and Analysis (S&A) Division will develop this policy. If the offices agree to allow the
permittee to submit a separate written response rather than to include the response as part of
a regular Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) submission, they will require the inspector to
record the necessary mailing instructions and deadline for response under the additional
comment section of the Deficiency Notice. The inspector indicates the appropriate method for
the permittee's response in the "requested action" section of the Deficiency Notice. Due to the
nature of most self-monitoring problems it is reasonable for the regulatory authority to ask that
the permittee submit a written description of any corrective actions within 15 work days after
receiving the Notice. Where the permittee is asked to respond as part of a regular DMR
submission, a similar reporting time allowance should be allotted. In either response option,
the inspector should always indicate in the Deficiency Notice the requested date for permittee
response.
Having the permittee document Deficiency Notice corrective actions as part of a regular DMR
submission establishes accountability for the compliance inspection in the official NPDES permit
compliance file even before a compliance review is undertaken. This is a resource efficient
method of documenting the minimum benefit from performing inspections.
The issuance of a Deficiency Notice is not a formal enforcement action. It is not intended and
must not be construed as an administrative or legal order to the permittee. Therefore, the
action by the permittee to respond is voluntary, but incentive for such response comes from
the positive consideration it may have on further formal enforcement follow-up of the
inspection.
When the regulatory authority receives the permittee's response to the Deficiency Notice, they
will review the inspection data and the permittee's response according to EMS procedures. If
during routine reviews of inspection data, the authorities note deficiencies in self-monitoring
data and note that the inspector did not issue a Deficiency Notice, they may issue one at any
time.
The responsibility for all enforcement activity shall always remain in the
enforcement/compliance review office of the regulatory authority. After agreement between
the Directors of the Regional Enforcement Division and the S&A Division, these offices should
incorporate details for insuring which office retains which responsibility into the Regional EMS.
Whether or not a Deficiency Notice has been issued, the enforcement office of the regulatory
Appendix I - Page 599
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
authority can take administrative or legal action at any time. Also, a Deficiency Notice may not
be appropriate in those cases where additional enforcement action is expected or litigation
against the permittee is already underway.
Appendix I - Page 600
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPA Deficiency Notice Form
DEFICIENCY NOTICE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PERMITTEE (Facility) NAME AND ADDRESS
PPPMITTPP RPPPPQPMTATI\/P fRanon/inn thie Mntina)/Tif\a
NPDES PERMIT NO.
During the compliance inspection carried out on (Date) the deficiencies noted below were found.
Additional areas of deficiency may be brought to your attention following a complete review of the Inspection Report and other in-formation on file with
the REGULATORY AUTHORITY administering your NPDES PERMIT.
DEFICENCIES
MONITORING LOCATION tDescribe)
FLOW MEASUREMENT tDescribe)
SAMPLE COLLECTION / HOLDING TIME tDescribe)
SAMPLE PRESERVATION (Describe)
TEST PROCEDURES SECTION 304(h). 40 CFR Part 136 (Describe)
RECORD KEEPING (Describe)
OTHER SELF-MONITORING DEFICIENCIES (Describe)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
REQUESTED ACTION—Your attention to the correction of the deficiencies noted above is requested. Receipt of a description of the corrective actions
taken will be considered in the determination of the need for further Administrative or Legal Action. Your response is to be (Inspector line out
inappropriate response method): (1) Include with your next NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or (2) submitted as directed by the
inspector. Questions regarding possible follow-up action can be answered by the REGULATORY AUTHORITY to which your DMRs are submitted and
which administers your NPDES Permit.
INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE
INSPECTOR'S PRINTED NAME
INSPECTOR'S ADDRESS/PHONE NO.
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY/ADDRESS
DATE
EPA Form 3560-4 (2-80)
Appendix I - Page 601
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix J -
Inspection Conclusion Data Summary (ICDS)
Appendix J - Page 602
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPA MANUAL INSPECTION CONCLUSION DATA SHEET (ICDS) FORM
1. Region: Facility Name/Location:
2. General Facility Permit ID or Media-Specific Permit ID number (e.g. NPDES permit #):
3. SIC (4-digit): ~~~~~ OR NAICS Code (5-digit): ~~~~~
4. Date of Inspection: (mm/dd/yyyy)
5. Media Type (check one only)
CAA-Stationary ~ CWA-NPDES ~ GLP ~ TSCA Lead Paint ~ CAA 112r ~
CAA-Mobile Sources ~ RCRA ~ UST ~ TSCA core, PCBs, asbestos ~
6. Deficiencies: Did you observe deficiencies during inspection? Yes ~ No ~ [N/A is not allowed]
a. If YES, go to #7
b. If NO, go to #9
7. If YES: Did you communicate the deficiencies to the facility during the inspection? Yes ~ No ~
8. Actions Taken: Did you observe or see the facility take any actions during the inspection to address the
deficiencies communicated? Yes ~ No ~ [N/A is not allowed]
a. If NO, go to #9
b. If YES, check the action(s) taken, or describe any other actions taken. (Check all that apply)
Action(s) taken
Verified compliance with previously issued enforcement action -part or all conditions
Corrected recordkeeping deficiencies
Corrected monitoring deficiencies
Completed a notification or a report
Requested a permit application
Implemented new or improved management practices or procedures
Improved pollutant identification (e.g., labeling, manifesting, storage, etc.)
Reduced pollution (e.g., use reduction, industrial process change, emissions or discharge change,
etc.). Specify the pollutant(s) reduced only if this action is checked.
Water: Ammonia ~ BOD ~ COD ~ TSS ~ O/G ~ TC ~ DO ~ Metals ~ CN ~
Air: NOx ~ S02 ~ PM ~ VOC ~ Metals ~ HAPs ~ CO ~
List other actions observed or other pollutants reduced:
9. Assistance: Did you provide general assistance based on national policy? Yes ~ No ~
Did you provide site-specific assistance based on national policy? Yes ~ No ~
Note: EPA inspectors are not required to provide compliance assistance.
Optional Information: Describe actions taken or assistance provided to assist the facility.
Appendix J - Page 603
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix K -
Draft Guidance for
Releasing Civil Inspection Reports
Appendix K - Page 604
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
[Appendix K: Draft Guidance for Releasing Civil Inspection Reports]
Appendix K - Page 605
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix L -
Sample Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR) Form
Appendix L - Page 606
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
DMR Copy of Record
Permit
Permit t:
Major:
Permitted Feature:
tot
Intake Structure
Report Dates & Status
Monitoring Period: From 03/01/15 to 03/31/15
Considerations for Form Completion
Permittee:
Permittee Address:
Discharge:
OMR Que Date:
101-1
HYDRAOUCAU.Y DREDGED MATERIA!.
Facility:
Facility Location:
NetDMR Validated
Principal Executive Officer
First Name:
Last Name-
No Date Indicator (NODI)
Form NODI:
00011 Torapereture. w»l*f
00386 Flow lata
00*00pM
OOSOOScM*. total
01032 cnransurti. hexavatent ja* Cr)
01034 OKoiMti. total |M O]
Monitoring Location knm • Pttam MODI
7 • Intake *om 5**ttro 0
Quantity O) LO«ikng
•438650
ReqMonMOAVG
7 Inuwo Horn SVeam 0
7 ¦ t«ake*am Seearo 0
7 Intake ten Sfoany 0
01061 Lead, totat (as Pb] 7 Intake (fom Strew* 0
22*56 PufjiiuOeor Aronikttle >tf(*ocartMCO |PAMs] 7 Intake bam Steam 0
VaW. MODI
t Valua]
ReqMonMOAVG
07-jl*>0
07 (jal'd
Re<| Men IMS1 MtN
50047 Flow, maxwium during 24 hi p«Kxl
7 • intake from Steam 0
759200 07 tfWO
Ren Man DAILY MX 07 ¦ gjt'S
| Telephone:
• el Ex. Ftceuency of Ari»ly»i» Same** Type
«eq Moo DAILY MX 15 • (toqf
3 Specif Report Affladhed
01/01 - D**»
01/01 - Daffy
CNCONTW
TM- TOTAL/
TM TOTAL2T
12 SU 02/30 Twtc®PwUonl»» GR GRAB
m INSr MAX 12 - SU 0 01/30 Mortl.y GR - GRAB
HW 19 • rreyi. 01/30 MontNy
Req Men INST MAX 19 - 0 01/30 - Mortrty
GR GRAB
GR- GRAB
01/30 - Month* GR GRAB
R«Mw INST MAX
H 1»-m»l 01/30 - Morthty
4 Mon INST MAX 19 - mpt 0 01/M Mordfy,
GR-GRAB
GR GRAB
151 19 - ¦not 01/30 - Monthy GR-GRAB
Risj Mon INST MAX 19 0 Ol'W MontWy GR GRAB
541 2S u»l 01/30 MartWy GR GRAB
Req Mon INST MAX 28 • u»V 0 01/M MontMy GR-GRAB
01/01 - Daey
01/01 - De*y
TM TOTAL2
TMTOTAU
Submission Note
II a parameter row does not contain any values (or the Sample nor Effluent Trading, then none of the lo(lowng fields wd be submrtted for thai row. Units. Number of Excursions Frequency of Analysts, and Sample Type.
Edit Check Errors
No errors
Comments
The NelDMR parameter Is listed as "Temperature, water deg. Fahrenheit" (code 00011) and the NetDMR requires (he "monthly average" and "daify maximum." These two reporting requirements (between NetDMR and the NPDES permit) are not the same, so based on our understanding, we
are providing the information required by the NP0ES perrnrt as an attachment
Attachments
Nm Type Size
Mar2015lnflAttachmon1 pdf pdf B0692
Report Last Saved By
2016-04-28 08 34 (Time Zone -04 00)
Nam®
E-Mail
Appendix L - Page 607
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix M -
Example Chain-of-Custody Form
Appendix A - Page A-608
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Services Division
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
REGION VIII, ONE DENVER PLACE
999 18TH STREET
DENVER, CO 80202-2413
NO
OF
CON-
TAINERS
REMARKS
SAMPLERS: (Sianature)
STAT. NO
DATE
TIME
C
O
M
P
G
R
A
B
STATION LOCATION
Relinauished bv: (Sianature)
Date/Time
Received bv:
Date/Time
Received bv: (Sianature)
Relinauished bv: tSianature)
Date/Time
Received bv: tSianature)
Relinauished bv: tSianature)
Date/Time
Received bv: tSianature)
Relinauished bv: tSianature)
Date/Time
Received for Laboratorv bv:
(Signature)
Date/Time
Remarks
Distribution Original Accompanies Shipment First Copy to Coordinator Field File Second Copy to Representative of
Inspected Facility
Split Samples
[ ] Accepted [ ] Signature
R8 EPA-014B (4-21-86)
8-15076
Appendix M - Page 609
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix N-
Updated Fact Sheet: Department of
Transportation Hazardous Materials
Appendix N - Page 610
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING
What are DOT training requirements?
DOT's training requirements can be found at 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart H. In general, any
employee who has a responsibility working with hazardous materials (hazmat) that is placed in
commerce must have hazmat training. The employee must be familiar or aware of the
requirements enabling the employee to recognize and identify hazardous materials, i.e.,
hazardous samples vs. non- hazardous samples, consistent with the hazard communication
standards. The training must be commensurate with functions and responsibilities of the
employee.
Why does hazmat training apply to me?
As an inspector, you are likely to be a hazmat employee because you collect samples during an
inspection and prepare the hazmat samples for transportation. The EPA is a hazmat employer
because the Agency causes hazmat to be transported or shipped in commerce through its
employees. DOT defines "hazmat employer" to include any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an Indian
Nation. Administrative and secretarial staff are also subject to DOT training if their
responsibilities cause hazmat materials to be placed into commerce, i.e., preparing shipping
papers.
Does my EPA training substitute for DOT training requirements?
The EPA Health & Safety course provides the inspector with information on protecting oneself
for on-the-job hazards and would meet DOT's Safety training requirement. It does not meet the
General awareness/familiarization requirement. See DOT's training requirements.
What type of DOT training do I need?
DOT hazmat training is function-specific. For most inspectors, the general awareness hazardous
materials training course found on the DOT's website will be sufficient to meet the DOT training
requirements. Alternatively, the employer can provide function specific training from other
sources, (see below).
What are DOT's training requirements for hazardous materials?
DOT's hazmat training, 49 CFR Part 172.704, focuses on three requirements applicable to
inspectors and administrative staff:
• General awareness/familiarization
¦S Each hazmat employee shall be provided general awareness/familiarization training
designed to provide familiarity with the hazmat requirements and to enable the
employee to recognize and identify hazardous materials consistent with the hazard
communication standards.
What are DOT's requirements for hazardous materials?
• Function-specific
Appendix N - Page 611
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
¦S Each hazmat employee shall be provided function-specific training as it applies to
the employee's job responsibilities.
• Safety
¦S Emergency response information required by part 172, subpart G, i.e., information
that can be used in the mitigation of an incident involving hazardous materials;
Measures to protect the employee from the hazards associated with hazardous
materials to which they may be exposed in the work place, including specific
measures the hazmat employer has implemented to protect employees from
exposure; and Methods and procedures for avoiding accidents, such as the proper
procedures for handling packages containing hazardous materials.
Where can I find training opportunities?
A good training resource is DOT's hazmat page, hazmat.dot.gov/training. You can download the
instructor's and student's training manual for in-house use. The training manual does include
test questions. Self-training is acceptable by DOT so long as 49 CFR Part 172.704 training
requirements are met. The DOT's Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma City, OK offers
training on-site. Course dates are available from the website.
In addition to DOT's hazmat site, this web link, hazmat.dot.gov/thirdpty.htm identifies third
party providers who offer a variety of hazmat training courses.
How long does the certification last?
The hazardous materials training is required to be completed within the first 90 days of
employment. The certification period is good for three years and then the hazardous materials
training program must be retaken. If your job responsibilities change, your training needs may
change.
Who is responsible for training?
The employer is responsible. DOT's definition of employer is not clear in terms of EPA's
administrative structure. "Employer" could be defined as the Administrator or any other
manager in direct supervisory line of the employee.
Who is responsible for keeping the training record?
The employer is responsible for keeping the employee's records.
What should be in the training record?
Documentation that shows the employee has completed the necessary training, and has been
tested and certified.
Specifically, what documents need to be retained?
A record of current training, inclusive of the preceding three years must be retained for as long
as the employee is employed by that employer as a hazmat employee and for 90 days
thereafter. The record shall include the following information:
(1) The inspector's name;
(2) The most recent training completion date of the inspector's training;
Appendix N - Page 612
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
(3) A description, copy, or the location of the training materials used to meet the
requirements;
(4) The name and address of the person providing the training; and
(5) Certification that the hazmat employee has been trained and tested.
Does the employee have to "pass" the test?
The requirements do not state that the employee must "pass" a test; however, an employee
may only be certified in areas in which he/she can successfully perform their hazmat duties.
Know Your Shipper's Requirements!
Before collecting samples, know which shipping company you will be using to ship your
samples. Some require additional training and certification beyond the basic DOT requirements.
Here are three common carriers with some of their requirements for shipping hazmat
materials.
Federal Express (FedEx)
The shipping method you select determines what type of training FedEx expects you to have
completed. If you plan to ship samples by ground, the DOT training requirements are sufficient.
If you plan to ship the samples by air, then you must be trained according to International Air
Transport Association (IATA) regulations. Successful completion of the IATA requirements will
meet DOT's hazard communications requirements. IATA training and information can be found
at: www.iata.org.
United Postal Service (UPS)
Documentation that shows the employee has awareness training is acceptable by UPS for
ground shipments. Shipments by air require IATA training.
United States Postal Service (USPS)
DOT's general awareness training and testing is acceptable by USPS for both shipping by ground
and air. However, the Postal Service does have limits which are more stringent than DOT's
regulations. Check this website for further details - http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm/c023.htm
Before shipping, you should inquire with the shipping company if they have additional
requirements for handling, packaging and shipment limitations for the hazmat materials.
Here are a few issues an inspector may face with the different shippers:
• Do you want them to meet you at the site? You may need to call ahead to schedule
the pickup before you arrive at the site to collect samples.
• Do you plan on dropping the shipment off? Not all offices can accept dangerous
goods and hazmat.
• Shipping papers may need to be typed, not handwritten. Do you bring a portable
typewriter with you or type the shipping papers before leaving the office?
Appendix N - Page 613
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix 0 -
Supplemental Flow
Measurement Information
Appendix O - Page 614
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SUPPLEMENTAL FLOW MEASUREMENT INFORMATION
Basic Hydraulic Calculations
The relationship between the flow rate (Q), the average velocity (V), and the cross-sectional
area of the flow (A) is given by the following equation:
Q = VA
where Q = flow in cubic feet per second
V = velocity in feet per second
A = area in square feet.
To convert flow in cubic feet of water per second to flow in gallons of water per minute, the
following proportionality is used:
cubic feet, 7.48 gallons water ,60 seconds gallons
second cubic foot of water minute "minute
To convert from cubic feet per second to million gallons per day, multiply the number of cubic
feet per second by 0.6463.
The cross-sectional area (A) of a pipe is described by:
A='Ond^
where d = diameter of the pipe in feet.
Flow Measurement Devices
Flow data may be collected instantaneously or continuously. Instantaneous flows must be
measured when samples are taken so that the pollutant concentrations can be correlated to
flow data. In a continuous flow measurement system, flow measurements are summed to
obtain a value for the total flow to verify NPDES permit compliance.
A typical continuous flow measurement system consists of a flow device, a flow sensor,
transmitting equipment, a recorder, and a totalizer.
Instantaneous flow data can be obtained without using such a system. The primary flow device
is constructed to yield predictable hydraulic responses related to the rate of wastewater or
Appendix O - Page 615
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
water flowing through the device. As previously mentioned, examples of such devices include
weirs and flumes, which relate water depth (head) to flow; Venturi meters, which relate
differential pressure to flow; and electromagnetic flowmeters, which relate induced electric
voltage to flow. In most cases, a standard primary flow device has undergone detailed testing
and experimentation and its accuracy has been verified.
Flow is measured by many methods; some are designed to measure open channel flows, and
others are designed to measure flows in pipelines. A complete discussion of all available flow
measurement methods, their supporting theories, and the devices used are beyond the scope
of this manual. The most commonly used flow measurement devices and procedures for
inspecting them will be described briefly in the following paragraphs. For more detail,
inspectors should consult the publications listed in References at the end of this chapter.
Primary Devices
Weirs. A weir consists of a thin vertical plate with a sharp crest that is placed in a stream,
channel, or partly filled pipe. Figure 0-1 shows a profile of a sharp-crested weir and indicates
the appropriate nomenclature. Four common types of sharp-crested weirs are shown in Figure
0-2. This figure illustrates the difference between suppressed and contracted rectangular weirs
and illustrates Cipolletti (trapezoidal) and V-notch (triangular) weirs.
To determine the flow rate, it is necessary to measure the hydraulic head (height) of water
above the crest of the weir. For accurate flow measurements, the crest must be clean, sharp,
and level. The edge of the crest must not be thicker than 1/8 inch.
The rate of flow over a weir is directly related to the height of the water (head) above the crest
at a point upstream of the weir where the water surface is level. To calculate the discharge over
a weir, the head must first be measured by placing a measuring device upstream of the weir, at
a distance of at least 4 times an approximate measurement of the head. A measurement can be
taken at the weir plate to approximate the head. However, if this measurement is used to
calculate the discharge, this value will provide only a rough estimate of the discharge.
The head-discharge relationship formulas for nonsubmerged contracted and suppressed
rectangular weirs, Cipolletti weirs, and V-notch weirs are provided in Table 0-1. Discharge rates
for the 90-degree V-notch weir (when the head is measured at the weir plate) are included in
Table 0-2. Flow rates for 60- and 90-degree V-notch weirs can be determined from the graph in
Figure 0-3. Minimum and maximum recommended flow rates for Cipolletti weirs are provided
in Table 0-3. Figure 0-4 is a nomograph for flow rates for rectangular weirs using the Francis
formulas.
Parshall Flume. The Parshall flume is composed of three sections: a converging upstream
section, a throat or contracted section, and a diverging or dropping downstream section. When
there is free fall out of the throat of a Parshall flume, no diverging downstream section is
required. It operates on the principle that when open channel water flows through a
constriction in the channel, it produces a hydraulic head at a certain point upstream of the
constriction that is proportional to the flow. The hydraulic head is used to calculate the flow.
Appendix O - Page 616
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Flow curves are shown in Figure 0-5 to determine free flow through 3 inches to 50 feet Parshall
flumes.
The Parshall flume is good for measuring open channel waste flow because it is self-cleaning;
therefore, sand or suspended solids are unlikely to affect the operation of the device. The flume
is both simple and accurate.
The flume size is given by the width of the throat section. Parshall flumes have been developed
with throat widths from 1 inch to 50 feet. The configuration and standard nomenclature for
Parshall flumes are provided in Figure 0-6. Strict adherence to all dimensions is necessary to
achieve accurate flow measurements. Figure 0-6 provides Parshall flume dimensions for
various throat widths, and Table 0-4 provides the minimum and maximum flow rates for free
flow through Parshall flumes.
For free nonsubmerged flow in a Parshall flume of throat and upstream head (Ha in feet), the
discharge relationship for flumes of 8 feet or less is given by the general equation Q = CWHan,
where Q = flow.
Table 0-5 provides the values of C, n, and Q for different sizes (widths) of the Parshall flumes.
Nomographs, curves, or tables are readily available to determine the discharge from head
observations.
Flow through a Parshall flume may also be submerged. The degree of submergence is indicated
by the ratio of the downstream head to the upstream head (Hb/Ha), which is the submergence
ratio. Hb is the height of water measured above the crest. The flow is submerged if the
submerged ratio is:
• Greater than 0.5 for flumes under 3 inches
• Greater than 0.6 for flumes 6 to 9 inches
• Greater than 0.7 for flumes 1 to 8 feet
• Greater than 0.8 for flumes larger than 8 feet.
If submerged conditions exist, the inspector should apply a correction factor to the free flow
determined using the relationship Q= CWHn. These correction factors are shown in Figure 0-7
for different sizes of the Parshall flume.
Palmer-Bowlus Flume. The Palmer-Bowlus flume is also composed of three sections: a
converging upstream section, a contracted section or throat, and a diverging downstream
section (Figure 0-8). The upstream depth of the water (head) above the raised step in the
throat is related to the discharge rate. The head should be measured at a distance d/2
upstream of the throat where d is the size (width) of the flume. The height of the step is usually
unknown until the manufacturer's data are consulted, it is difficult to manually measure the
height of water above the step at an upstream point. The dimensions for Palmer-Bowlus flumes
are not standardized as they are for Parshall flumes. Therefore, no standard flow equation
exists. Instead, rating curves are provided by manufacturers of Palmer-Bowlus flumes to relate
the head to the discharge rate.
Appendix O - Page 617
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The flume must be installed with a minimum channel slope downstream to maintain critical
flow through the flume and prevent the flume from becoming submerged. A small jump or rise
in the water surface below the throat indicates that critical flow through the flume has
probably occurred and submerged conditions do not exist. Accurate flow measurements can
usually be obtained with upstream depths that are up to 95 percent of the pipe diameter. Table
0-6 provides a table of the maximum slopes recommended for installation of Palmer-Bowlus
flumes. Advantages of this type of flow measurement device are the following:
• It is easily installed in existing systems.
• Head loss is insignificant.
• Unit is self-cleaning.
Venturi Meter. The Venturi (differential pressure) meter is one of the most accurate primary
devices for measuring flow rates in pipes. The Venturi meter is basically a pipe segment
consisting of an inlet section, a converging section, and a throat, along with a diverging outlet
section as illustrated in Figure 0-9. The water velocity is increased in the constricted portion of
the inlet section resulting in a decrease in the static pressure. The pressure difference between
the inlet pipe and the throat is proportional to the square of the flow. The pressure difference
can easily be measured very accurately, resulting in an accurate flow measurement. An
advantage of the Venturi meter is that it causes little pressure (head) loss. The formula for
calculating the flow in a Venturi meter is as follows:
2 ,
Q=cKd2A/h1-h2 (Kingl963)
where
Q
c
volume of water, in cubic feet per second
discharge coefficient, obtain from Table 0-7. C varies with Reynold's
number, meter surfaces, and installation
hi
h2
K
pressure head at center of pipe at inlet section, in feet of water
pressure head at throat, in feet of water
constant which relates d2 to dl for Venturi meters. Obtain values of K
from Table 0-8 or calculate according to the formula
K =
where d2 =
di =
throat diameter, in feet
diameter of inlet pipe, in feet
Electromagnetic Flowmeter. The electromagnetic flowmeter operates according to Faraday's
Law of Induction: the voltage induced by a conductor moving at right angles through a
Appendix O - Page 618
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
magnetic field will be proportional to the velocity of the conductor through the field. In the
electromagnetic flowmeter, the conductor is the liquid stream to be measured and the field is
produced by a set of electromagnetic coils. A typical electromagnetic flowmeter is shown in
Figure O-IO. The induced voltage is transmitted to a converter for signal conditioning. The
meter may be provided with recorder and totalizer using electric or pneumatic transmission
systems. This type of flowmeter is useful at sewage lift stations and for measuring total raw
wastewater flow or raw or recirculated sludge flow.
Electromagnetic flowmeters are used in full pipes and have many advantages, including:
accuracies of +1 percent, a wide flow measurement range, a negligible pressure loss, no moving
parts, and rapid response time. However, they are expensive and buildup of grease deposits or
pitting by abrasive wastewaters can cause error. Regular checking and cleaning of the
electrodes is necessary. The meter electronics can be checked for proper operation with
devices specially made for this purpose. The meter should be checked at least annually. The
calibration of an electromagnetic flowmeter cannot be verified except by returning it to the
factory or by the dye dilution method.
Propeller Meter. The propeller meter (Figure 0-11) operates on the principle that liquid hitting
the propeller will cause the propeller to rotate at a speed proportional to the flow rate. The
meter is self-contained and requires no energy or equipment other than a mechanical totalizer
to obtain a cumulative flow reading. Equipment may be added to the meter to produce a flow
reading, to pace chemical feed equipment, and to control telemetering equipment for remote
readout. The calibration of a propeller meter can be checked by returning it to the factory, by
comparing its readings to another meter measuring the same flow, or by using the dye dilution
method.
Secondary Devices
Secondary devices are the devices in the flow measurement system that translate the
interaction of primary devices in contact with the fluid into the desired records or readout.
They can be organized into two broad classes:
• Nonrecording type with direct readout (e.g., a staff gauge) or indirect readout from
fixed points (e.g., a chain, wire weight, float)
• Recording type with either digital or graphic recorders (e.g., float in well, float in
flow, bubbler, electrical, acoustic).
The advantages and disadvantages of various secondary devices are provided in Table 0-9.
Transit-Time Flowmeter. The transit-time flowmeter (Figure 0-12) is a new ultrasonic
technology that can be used as a secondary device. As a secondary device, the transit-time
flowmeter must be used in conjunction with one of the primary devices described above. The
transit-time flowmeter utilizes a minimum of one pair of transducers that alternately transmit
and receive an ultrasonic signal. The transducers are placed on or in the pipe at a defined
spacing based on a predetermined angle. The signal between the pair of transducers is
alternately transmitted, first upstream and then downstream. At a zero flow condition, the time
for the two signals to be transmitted and received are equal. However, as flow begins, the
Appendix O - Page 619
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
liquid's flow velocity speeds up the signal in the up to downstream direction while slowing the
signal in the down to upstream direction. The difference in time between the two signals is
proportional to the liquid's velocity. Knowing the liquid's flow velocity and the pipe inner
diameter area provides the instantaneous flow rate. The flowmeter provides analog and
discrete outputs for remote recorder and totalization of flow.
Transit-time flowmeters are suitable for the typical range of liquids found in full pipe
applications. The clamp-on nature of the meter allows for its installation without the need to
shut down the existing line. Transit-time flowmeters are available in both permanent and
portable configurations.
Pumps
Some wastewater facilities may need to measure flow by means of pumps in which
discharge-versus-power relationships have been determined from measurements of the
average output or input during a period in which discharge measurements were made. Suitable
curves may be developed from these test data. When readily available from the manufacturer,
pump curves may be used by the inspector to estimate flow.
Because of wear on pumps and uncertainty regarding actual discharge heads, pump curves at
best only provide an estimate of the flow. Pump curves are not normally accurate enough to be
used for NPDES permit discharge flow measurements. Pump curves have been used for
determining large flows, such as the cooling water discharge from large steam electric power
plants, where a high degree of accuracy was not necessary.
Appendix O - Page 620
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-1
Head-Discharge Relationship Formulas for Nonsubmerged Weirs*
Weir Type
Contracted
Suppressed
Remarks
Reference
Rectangular
Francis
formulas
Q = 3.33 (L - 0.1 nH)H15
Q =
3.33 L H1'5
Approach velocity
neglected
King 1963
Q = 3.33 ((H + h)L5-h15)(L -
O.lnH)
Q = 3.33 L((H + h)1'5
- h15)
Approach velocity
considered
King 1963
Cipolletti
Q = 3.367 L H15
NA
Approach velocity
neglected
King 1963
Q = 3.367 L (H + h)15 - h15
NA
Approach velocity
considered
EPA 1973
V-notch
Formula for
90° V-notch
only
Q= 2.50 H25
NA
Not appreciably
affected by
approach velocity
King 1963
Q = 3.01 Hw2.48
NA
Head measured
at weir plate
Eli and
Peterson
1979(EPA-
61809A-2B)
Q = discharge in cubic feet
H = head in feet
NA = not applicable
Hw = head in feet at weir plate
n = number of end contractions
L = crest length in feet
h = head in feet due to the approach velocity =
v2/2g
V = approach velocity
g = gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
*Selection of a formula depends on its suitability and parameters under consideration.
Appendix O - Page 621
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-2
Discharge of 90° V-Notch Weir—Head Measured at Weir Plate
Head@
Flow
Head@
Flow
Head@
Flow
Weir
Rate
Weir
Rate
Weir
Rate
in Feet
in CFS
in Feet
in CFS
in Feet
in CFS
0.06
0.003
0.46
0.439
0.86
2.071
0.07
0.004
0.47
0.463
0.87
2.140
0.08
0.006
0.48
0.488
0.88
2.192
0.09
0.008
0.49
0.513
0.89
2.255
0.10
0.010
0.50
0.540
0.90
2.318
0.11
0.013
0.51
0.567
0.91
2.382
0.12
0.016
0.52
0.595
0.92
2.448
0.13
0.019
0.53
0.623
0.93
2.514
0.14
0.023
0.54
0.653
0.94
2.582
0.15
0.027
0.55
0.683
0.95
2.650
0.16
0.032
0.56
0.715
0.96
2.720
0.17
0.037
0.57
0.747
0.97
2.791
0.18
0.043
0.58
0.780
0.98
2.863
0.19
0.049
0.59
0.813
0.99
2.936
0.20
0.056
0.60
0.848
1.00
3.010
0.21
0.063
0.61
0.883
1.01
3.085
0.22
0.070
0.62
0.920
1.02
3.162
0.23
0.079
0.63
0.957
1.03
3.239
0.24
0.087
0.64
0.995
1.04
3.317
0.25
0.097
0.65
1.034
1.05
3.397
0.26
0.107
0.66
1.074
1.06
3.478
0.27
0.117
0.67
1.115
1.07
3.556
0.28
0.128
0.68
1.157
1.08
3.643
0.29
0.140
0.69
1.199
1.09
3.727
0.30
0.152
0.70
1.243
1.10
3.813
0.31
0.165
0.71
1.287
1.11
3.889
0.32
0.178
0.72
1.333
1.12
3.987
0.33
0.193
0.73
1.379
1.13
4.076
0.34
0.207
0.74
1.426
1.14
4.166
0.35
0.223
0.75
1.475
1.15
4.257
0.36
0.239
0.76
1.524
1.16
4.349
0.37
0.256
0.77
1.574
1.17
4.443
0.38
0.273
0.78
1.625
1.18
4.538
0.39
0.291
0.79
1.678
1.19
4.634
0.40
0.310
0.80
1.730
1.20
4.731
0.41
0.330
0.81
1.785
1.21
4.829
0.42
0.350
0.82
1.840
1.22
4.929
0.43
0.371
0.83
1.896
1.23
5.030
0.44
0.393
0.84
1.953
1.24
5.132
0.45
0.415
0.85
2.012
1.25
5.235
Equation Q = 3.01 Hw248,where Hw, head, is in feet at the weir and Q is in cubic feet per second.
Appendix O - Page 622
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-3
Minimum and Maximum Recommended Flow Rates
for Cipolletti Weirs
Crest
Minimum Flow Rate
Maximum Flow Rate
Length, ft.
Minimum
Head, ft.
MGD
CFS
Maximum
Head, ft.
MGD
CFS
1
0.2
0.195
0.301
0.5
0.769
1.19
1.5
0.2
0.292
0.452
0.75
2.12
3.28
2
0.2
0.389
0.602
1.0
4.35
6.73
2.5
0.2
0.487
0.753
1.25
7.60
11.8
3
0.2
0.584
0.903
1.5
12.0
18.6
4
0.2
0.778
1.20
2.0
24.6
38.1
5
0.2
0.973
1.51
2.5
43.0
66.5
6
0.2
0.17
1.81
3.0
67.8
105.0
8
0.2
0.56
2.413.01
4.0
139.0
214.0
10
0.2
1.95
5.0
243.0
375.0
Table 0-4
Minimum and Maximum Recommended Flow Rates
for Free Flow Through Parshall Flumes
Throat
Width,
W
Minimum
Head, ft.
Minimum Flow Rate
Maximum
Head, ft.
Maximum Flow Rate
MGD
CFS
MGD
CFS
1
in.
0.07
0.003
0.005
0.60
0.099
0.153
2
in.
0.07
0.007
0.011
0.60
0.198
0.306
3
in.
0.10
0.018
0.028
1.5
1.20
1.86
6
in.
0.10
0.035
0.054
1.5
2.53
3.91
9
in.
0.10
0.05
0.091
2.0
5.73
8.87
1
ft.
0.10
0.078
0.120
2.5
10.4
16.1
1.5
ft.
0.10
0.112
0.174
2.5
15.9
24.6
2
ft.
0.15
0.273
0.423
2.5
21.4
33.1
3
ft.
0.15
0.397
0.615
2.5
32.6
50.4
4
ft.
0.20
0.816
1.26
2.5
43.9
67.9
5
ft.
0.20
1.00
1.55
2.5
55.3
85.6
6
ft.
0.25
1.70
2.63
2.5
66.9
103
8
ft.
0.25
2.23
3.45
2.5
90.1
139
10
ft.
0.30
3.71
5.74
3.5
189
292
12
ft.
0.33
5.13
7.93
4.5
335
519
Appendix O - Page 623
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-5
Free-Flow Values of C and N for Parshall Flumes
Based on the Relationship Q = CWHn
(American Petroleum Institute 1969)
Flume Throat, W
C
n
Max. Q CFS
1
in.
0.338
1.55
0.15
2
in.
0.676
1.55
0.30
3
in.
0.992
1.55
1.8
6
in.
2.06
1.58
3.9
9
in.
3.07
1.53
8.9
1
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
16.1
1.5
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
24.6
2
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
33.1
3
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
50.4
4
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
67.9
5
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
85.6
6
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
103.5
7
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
121.4
8
ft.
4W*
1.522W0026
139.5
Where, W = Flume throat width
Q= Flow (CFS)
C = Constant
N = Constant
H = Head upstream of the flume throat (feet)
* = W should be represented in feet to calculate C
Appendix O - Page 624
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-6
Minimum and Maximum Recommended Flow Rates for
Free Flow Through Plasti-Fab Palmer-Bowlus Flumes
D Flume
Size (in.)
Maximum
Slope for
Upstream (%)
Minimum
Head (ft.)
Minimum Flow
Rate
Maximum
Head (ft.)
Maximum Flow
Rate
MGD
CFS
MGD
CFS
6
2.2
0.11
0.023
0.035
0.36
0.203
0.315
8
2.0
0.15
0.048
0.074
0.49
0.433
0.670
10
1.8
0.18
0.079
0.122
0.61
0.752
1.16
12
1.6
0.22
0.128
0.198
0.73
1.18
1.83
15
1.5
0.27
0.216
0.334
0.91
2.06
3.18
18
1.4
0.33
0.355
0.549
1.09
3.24
5.01
21
1.4
0.38
0.504
0.780
1.28
4.81
7.44
24
1.3
0.44
0.721
1.12
1.46
6.70
10.4
27
1.3
0.49
0.945
1.46
1.64
8.95
13.8
30
1.3
0.55
1.26
1.95
1.82
11.6
18.0
Table 0-7
Coefficients of Discharge c for Venturi Meters
(King 1963)
Throat Velocity, ft. per sec.
Diameter of
Throat, in.
3
4
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
1
0.935
0.945
0.949
0.958
0.963
0.966
0.969
0.970
0.972
2
0.939
0.948
0.953
0.965
0.970
0.973
0.974
0.975
0.977
4
0.943
0.952
0.957
0.970
0.975
0.977
0.978
0.979
0.980
8
0.948
0.957
0.962
0.974
0.978
0.980
0.981
0.982
0.983
12
0.955
0.962
0.967
0.978
0.981
0.982
0.983
0.984
0.985
18
0.963
0.969
0.973
0.981
0.983
0.984
0.985
0.986
0.986
48
0.970
0.977
0.980
0.984
0.985
0.986
0.987
0.988
0.988
Appendix O - Page 625
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-8
Values of K in Formula for Venturi Meters
(King 1963)
d?
d?
d?
d?
d?
K
K
K
K
K
Q.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Q.
0.20
6.31
0.33
6.34
0.46
6.45
0.59
6.72
0.72
7.37
0.21
6.31
0.34
6.34
0.47
6.46
0.60
6.75
0.73
7.45
0.22
6.31
0.35
6.35
0.48
6.47
0.61
6.79
0.74
7.53
0.23
6.31
0.36
6.35
0.49
6.49
0.62
6.82
0.75
7.62
0.24
6.31
0.37
6.36
0.50
6.51
0.63
6.86
0.76
7.72
0.25
6.31
0.38
6.37
0.51
6.52
0.64
6.91
0.77
7.82
0.26
6.31
0.39
6.37
0.52
6.54
0.65
6.95
0.78
7.94
0.27
6.32
0.40
6.38
0.53
6.54
0.66
7.00
0.79
8.06
0.28
6.32
0.41
6.39
0.54
6.59
0.67
7.05
0.80
8.20
0.29
6.32
0.42
6.40
0.55
6.61
0.68
7.11
0.81
8.35
0.30
6.33
0.43
6.41
0.56
6.64
0.69
7.17
0.82
8.51
0.31
6.33
0.44
6.42
0.57
6.66
0.70
7.23
0.83
8.69
0.32
6.33
0.45
6.43
0.58
6.69
0.71
7.30
0.84
8.89
Appendix O - Page 626
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 0-9
Advantages and Disadvantages of Secondary Devices
Device
Advantages
Disadvantages
Hook Gauge
Common
Requires training to use, easily
damaged
Stage Board
Common
Needs regular cleaning, difficult to read
top of meniscus
Pressure Measurement
a. Pressure Bulb
Since no compressed air is used,
source can be linked directly to
sampler
Openings can clog, expensive
b. BubblerTube
Self-cleaning, less expensive, reliable
Needs compressed air or another air
source
Float
Inexpensive, reliable
Catches debris, requires frequent
cleaning to prevent sticking and
changing buoyancy, and corroding
hinges
Dipper
Quite reliable, easy to operate
Oil and grease foul probe, causing
possible sensor loss
Ultrasonic
No electrical or mechanical contact
Errors from heavy turbulence and
foam, calibration procedure is more
involved than for other devices
Appendix O - Page 627
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-1.
Profile and Nomenclature of Sharp-Crested Weirs
(Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers, Inc., 1973)
K= Approx. 0.1"
45%
or
Point to
Measure
Depth, H
20 H,
"max
Weir Crest
Straight
Inlet Run
At Least
4 Hmz
"OX.
'max
Minimum
Discharge
Level for
Free Fall
Nappe
2H,
'max
Air Gap
Free Fall
Weir
461B-0S
Appendix O - Page 628
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-2.
Three Common Types of Sharp-Crested Weirs (Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers,
Inc., 1973)
... i ^
*
— — — —
i
*
urn Crest length
«M-HH 1
-tmax
2 Hirax
Minimum
Suppressed {Without End Contractions)
Rectangular Weir
Trapezoidal (Cipolletti) Sharp-Crested Weir
2 Hmax
Minimum Crest Length
1
^ Hmax
, 2 Hmax
Minimum
-«*—1
,rgN
^Hmai
2 Hmax
' Minimum
Contracted (With End Contractions)
Rectangular Weir
V-Notch (Triangular) Sharp-Crested Weir
46IB 06
Appendix O - Page 629
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-3.
Flow Rates for 60° and 90° V-Notch Weirs (Associated Water and Resource Engineers, Inc.,
1973)
J_LJLJ_JLJLJJL
11 [ 111111
! I I II I I I 1
Weir Head, in Inches
= 45°
30° Weir
SS
60° Weir
'1^ = 80°
| I IHt| Hi HI I ll| i :' ; M M i I;; I [ n) i i IM ; j 11;! i MI j ¦ I ! M M I hi n H 11! 11;' H; j ¦ I I j i j ; I j: : : ' 11 n SI I; I m hi; M I I I
U3 -C* GX>
S g
Weir Head, in Inches
I-T i i in
tu
6
Appendix O - Page 630
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-4.
Nomograph for Capacity of Rectangular Weirs (Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers,
Inc., 1973)
LENGTH OF WEIR, L, IN FEET
GALLOWS PER MINUTE TO BE SUBTRACTED FROM FLOW FOR CONTRACTED WEIR
WITH TWO END CONTRACTIONS- {0,66 H 5/2) (450)
o
8
o p
2 8
_i j_
o
Kj
_L_
t—nr
o §
~r
©
§ e
¦ . i
§
TT—T—TiT
c©
CO IV
to -i -I -i h5
hj m co -a
p V 04 to; .£*
(4 CD Ui
HEAD IU INCHES
DISCHARGE, IN GALLOWS PER MINUTES
£* Cn
vt ©
© ©©©
' ' I I | I
hi
§
_L
8 § § 88 8®*
O
CO CD ©
" ©
©
I I I I I
' ' '
©
p
I
©
i i I r
© p P ©pr1
(ft 01 05 50 ©
N5
i i i n i i t
w ^ «r» cn--J 00 <0
-a rs?
tri o
4FS
DISCHARGE, Qf IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Appendix 0 - Page 631
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-5.
Flow Curves for Parshall Flumes
(Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers, Inc., 1973)
Appendix O - Page 632
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-6.
Dimensions and Capacities of Parshall Measuring Flumes for Various Throat Widths
(Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers, Inc., 1973)
CT
-n
—S
~n
Appendix O - Page 633
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-6.
Dimensions and Capacities of Parshall Measuring Flumes for Various Throat Widths
(continued)
W
A
¦aA
B
C
D
E
T
G
H
K
M
N
P
R
X
Y
Free-Flow
Capacity
(Second-Foot*)
Ft.
M.
Ft.
la.
Ft.
In.
Ft.
fa.
Ft.
In.
Ft.
In.
Ft.
In.
Ft
In.
Ft. In.
Ft
la
la.
In. Ft,
la.
Ft.
la.
Ft. In.
In.
la.
Mini-
mum Max
i-murn
0
3
1
&-/sU
vi
1
6
0
7
0
i
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-7.
Effect of Submergence on Parshall Flume Free Discharge (Civil Engineering, ASCE)
501
50 60 70 80 30 100
Hb
Submergence, Hq, in Percent 46iB-ii
Appendix O - Page 635
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-8.
Free-Flowing Palmer-Bowlus Flume
Upper
Transition
Lower
Transition
Flow
Water Surface
Upstream
Depth
H
Throat
Preferred Head
Measuring Point
D = Conduit Diameter
Small Jump
Should Occur
in This Region
Downstream
Depth
Appendix O - Page 636
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-9.
Configuration and Nomenclature of Venturi Meter
Inlet Section
Throat
Section
Outlet Section
Pipe
Diameter
High Pressure
Tap
Throat Diameter
Low Pressure Tap
461B-12
Appendix O - Page 637
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure O-IO.
Electromagnetic Flowmeter
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-11.
Propeller Flowmeter
Direct Reading Totalizer
Reduction Gears
Straightening Propeller Bevel Gears
Vanes
461B-13
Appendix O - Page 639
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure 0-12.
Transit-Time Flowmeter
fWMRlC
DCtWHStWt^
fSAWSllC ER <^3;
Appendix O - Page 640
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix P-
Sludge Inspection Checklists
Appendix P - Page 641
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
A. PERMIT VERIFICATION
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Are 40 CFR Part 503 sludge use and disposal requirements contained in a current
NPDES permit, in a separate "sludge only" NPDES permit, in a RCRA Subtitle C
permit, or in a CAA permit? [503.3(a)(1) or (2) (1)]
2.
Sludge use and disposal practice(s):
Yes
No
N/A
a. Land Application [503.101
Bulk Sewage Sludge [503.ll(e)l
Bulk Material Derived from Sewage Sludge [503.ll(e)l
Or
Sold or Given Awav in a Bag or Another Container [503.1 l(e)l
Yes
No
N/A
b. Surface Disposal [503.201
Yes
No
N/A
c. Sewage Sludge Incineration [503.401
Yes
No
N/A
d. Onsite or Offsite Storage [503.9(v)l
Date storage began ended
(Maximum time allowed: 2 years from February 19, 1993)
Yes
No
N/A
e. Other (list)
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Each sludge use or disposal practice is permitted? [503.3(a)(1) (1)]
Yes
No
N/A
4.
Notification is given to EPA/State of new or different sludge disposal method?
(Permit)
Yes
No
N/A
5.
Number and location of disposal sites/activities are as described in the permit or
fact sheet or land application plan (40 CFR Part 501)? [Permit]
Comments:
B. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING EVALUATION
Yes
No
N/A
1.
Self-monitoring data are available for all regulated pollutants? [503.17], [503.27],
[503.43]
Yes
No
N/A
2.
Pathogen and vector attraction reduction method description and certification
statement(s) available? [503.17], [503.27]
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Records are available for each applicable use or disposal practice? [503.17],
[503.27], [503.47]
Yes
No
N/A
4.
Accurate records of sludge volume or mass are maintained, where appropriate?
[503.25], [503.47]
Yes
No
N/A
5.
Monitoring and analyses are performed more often than required by permit? If
so, results are reported in the permittee's self-monitoring report? [Permit]
Yes
No
N/A
6.
Unit operations records verify compliance with pathogen and vector attraction
reduction requirements, where appropriate? [503.15], [503.25]
Yes
No
N/A
7.
Self-monitoring is conducted at the frequency specified in the permit, in 503.16
Table 1 (land application), or in 503.26 Table 1 (surface disposal)? [503.16],
Appendix P - Page 642
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
[503.26] or [503.46] Table 1. Production-dependent - 0-289 mtpy: 1/yr., 290-
1499 mtpy: 1/qtr., 1500-14999 mtpy: Vi mo., 15000 mtpy and greater, 1/mo.)
mtpy-metric ton per year
Yes
No
N/A
8. Facility reports sludge monitoring data at the frequency specified in the permit?
(Only for Class 1 facilities or POTWs with either total design flow >1 mgd or
serving population >10,000) [503.18], [503.28], [503.48]
Yes
No
N/A
9. Sludge records are maintained for at least 5 years? [503.17], [503.27], [503.47]
Yes
No
N/A
10.Sludge data are reported on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or approved
form? [Permit]
Yes
No
N/A
11.Sludge records are adequate to assess compliance with annual and/or cumulative
pollutant loading rates or other established permit limits? [503.13(a) (2) (i),
503.13(a) (4) (ii)]
Comments:
C. SLUDGE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS EVALUATION
Yes
No
N/A
1. Sludge samples are taken at locations specified in the permit? [Permit]
Yes
No
N/A
2. Sludge sample locations are appropriate for obtaining representative samples?
[503.8(a)
Yes
No
N/A
3. Sampling and analysis are conducted for parameters specified in the permit or in
40 CFR Part 503? [Permit], [503.13], [503.23], [503.46]
4. Sample collection procedures:
Yes
No
N/A
a. Adequate sample volumes are obtained?
Yes
No
N/A
b. Proper preservation techniques are used?
Yes
No
N/A
c. Containers conform to appropriate analytical method specified in 40 CFR Part
503.8?
Yes
No
N/A
d. Samples analyzed in the appropriate time frames in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 503.8?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Are results reported on a dry weight basis? [503.13], [503.23], [503.43]
(Dry weight concentration =
Wet weight concentration/Decimal fraction of solids)
e.g., A sludge containing 20 mg/l Cu and having 5% solids.
Drv weight Cu (mg/kg) = 20 mg/l = 400 mg/kg
0.05
Yes
No
N/A
6. Sample is refrigerated subsequent to compositing?
Yes
No
N/A
7. Chain-of-custody procedures are employed?
Yes
No
N/A
8. Analytical methods used are approved methods in 40 CFR Part 503.8 or updated
methods specified for Part 503 compliance?
Appendix P - Page 643
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Comments:
D. UNIT PROCESSES
General Sludge Processes
Yes No N/A
1. Sludge process control parameters maintained as appropriate?
Yes No N/A
2. Adequate equipment redundancy (e.g., back-up units)?
Yes No N/A
3. Adequate sludge storage capacity?
Yes No N/A
4. Contingency plan for sludge disposal practice?
Yes No N/A
5. Solids handling operation adequate to manage volume of sludge?
Comments:
Drying Beds, Gravity Thickener, Centrifuge, and Dissolved Air Floatation
Yes No N/A
1. Is primary unstabilized sludge fed to the thickener, centrifuge or drying bed?
If ves, list percentage of unstabilized sludge
Yes No N/A
2. What is the average % solids of the sludge before thickening, drying or
centrifuging? % after? %
Yes No N/A
3. Is sludge mixed with other materials before or after thickening?
Yes No N/A
4. For sludge containing unstabilized solids, is the percent solids greater than 90%
prior to mixing with other materials?
Yes No N/A
5. For sludge containing no unstabilized solids, is the percent solids greater than
75% prior to mixing with other materials?
Comments:
Anaerobic Digestion
1. Sludge fed to digester(s) includes:
Primary Secondary Combined
2. Digester(s) operating mode: high rate low rate
Yes No N/A
3. Digester(s) are operated at proper temperature [mesophilic: 95°F (35°C) and
thermophilic: 131°F (55°C)?
List operating mode: mesophilic thermophilic
Yes No N/A
4. Temperature monitoring location and frequency sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with Class B pathogen reduction requirements for PSRP?
Average Temperature: °Cor°F
Appendix P - Page 644
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Yes No N/A
5. Solids Retention Time (SRT) or Mean Cell Residence time (MCRT) calculated
properly? *
Yes No N/A
6. SRT or MCRT sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Class B pathogen
reduction requirements for PSRP?
Average SRT or MCRT: davs
*For batch operated digesters with no recycle:
SRT or MCRT = Mass of solids in digester, kg
Solids removed, kg/day
This formula can be used to estimate SRT or MCRT for all digester systems. For
calculating SRT or MCRT for other system configurations, use the WEF Manual of
Practice or other references. Always write down the calculation used by the
facility no matter what the configuration is.
Comments:
Aerobic Digestion
1. Sludge fed to digester(s) includes:
Primary Secondary Combined
2. Digester(s) operating mode: high rate low rate
Yes No N/A
3. Digester(s) are operated at proper temperature [cryophilic: <50°F (<10°C),
mesophilic: 50-108°F (10-42°C), and thermophilic: >108°F (42°C)?
List operating mode:
cryophilic mesophilic thermophilic
Yes No N/A
4. Temperature monitoring location and frequency sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with Class B pathogen reduction requirements for PSRP or with Class
A pathogen reduction requirements for PFRP (Thermophilic aerobic digestion
only)?
Average Temperature: °Cor°F
Yes No N/A
5. Solids Retention Time (SRT) or Mean Cell Residence time (MCRT) calculated
properly? *
Yes No N/A
6. SRT or MCRT sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Class B pathogen
reduction requirements for PSRP or with Class A pathogen reduction
requirements for PFRP (Thermophilic digestion only)?
Average SRT or MCRT: days
Yes No N/A
7. Aerobic conditions verified through dissolved oxygen monitoring?
*For batch operated digesters with no recycle:
SRT or MCRT = Mass of solids in digester, kg
Solids removed, kg/day
This formula can be used to estimate SRT or MCRT for all digester systems. For
calculating SRT or MCRT for other system configurations, use the WEF Manual of
Appendix P - Page 645
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Practice or other references. Always write down the calculation used by the
facility no matter what the configuration is.
Comments:
Composting
1. Type of composting performed:
In vessel Static piles Windrows
2. Type of sludge composted:
Primary Secondary Combined
Yes No N/A
3. Is the moisture content monitored?
Yes No N/A
4. Is compost mixed? Method?
Frequency of turnings?
Yes No N/A
5. Is oxygen content monitored?
Yes No N/A
6. Is temperature monitored?
Yes No N/A
7. Are total and total volatile solids monitored?
8. Active phase davs
Curing phase davs
Yes No N/A
9. Is site runoff treated? Where?
Yes No N/A
10.Temperature monitoring location and frequency sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with Class B pathogen reduction requirements for PSRP or with Class
A pathogen reduction requirements for PFRP?
Yes No N/A
11.Temperature and/or oxygen monitoring sufficient to determine compliance with
vector attraction reduction requirements?
Comments:
E. LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
Yes No N/A
1. Sewage sludge or material derived from sewage sludge is land applied to:
Agricultural Land Forest
Reclamation Site Lawn or Home Garden
Public Contact Site (Park, etc.)
Yes No N/A
2. Do monitoring results show pollutant concentrations below values shown in
Table 1 in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b)(1)? [Part 503.13(a)(1)'2'
Yes No N/A
3. Do monitoring results show pollutant concentrations below values shown in 40
CFR Part 503.13(b)(3)?(3»
4. Classifications of Sewage Sludge with respect to Pathogens: [503.30](4)
Class A Class B Unknown
Yes No N/A
5. Are Class A Pathogen reduction requirements met? [503.15(a)(4)
Appendix P - Page 646
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
6. Indicate which method is used to meet Class A requirements: [503.32(a)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and Time/Temperature requirements. [503.32(a)(3)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and pH requirements. [503.32(a)(4)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and enteric viruses or helminth ova reduction requirements. [503.32(a)(5)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and enteric viruses or helminth ova density requirements. [503.32(a)(6)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP). [503.32(a)(7) and [503
Appendix B] (5)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and equivalent PFRP. [503.32(a)(8) and [503 Appendix B] (5)
Yes No N/A
7. Are Class B Pathogen reduction requirements met? [503.32(b)(4)
8. Indicate which method(s) is used to meet Class B requirements:
Geometric mean of seven Fecal Coliform samples with <2,000,000 MPN/g total
solids or <2,000,000 Colony Forming Units/g total solids. [503.32(b)(2)
Treated by Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP). [503.32(b)(3) and
[503 Appendix B](5)
Treated by equivalent PSRP. [503.32(b)(4) and [503 Appendix B] (5)
Yes No N/A
9. For Class B sludge which is land applied, are Site Restrictions practiced? [503.32
(b)(5) (4)
Yes No N/A
10. Indicate Site Restrictions practiced where applicable:
Food crops (above ground) are harvested >14 months after application of
sewage sludge? [503.32(b)(5)(i)
Food Crops (below ground) are harvested >20 months after application of
sewage sludge when sludge stays on land for >4 months prior to incorporation
into soil? [503.32(b)(5)(ii)
Food Crops (below ground) are harvested >38 months after application of
sewage sludge when sludge stays on land for <4 months prior to incorporation
into soil? [503.32(b)(5)(iii)
Food Crops, feed crops, and fiber crops are harvested >30 days after
application of sewage sludge? [503.32(b)(5)(iv)
Animal grazing allowed on land only >30 days after application of sewage
sludge? [503.32(b)(5)(v)
Turf grown on land where sewage sludge was applied placed on high public
expose land or lawn is harvested >1 year after application of sewage sludge?
[503.32(b)(5)(vi)
Public access is restricted to land with a potential for high public exposure for
1 year? [503.32(b)(5)(vii)
Appendix P - Page 647
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Public access is restricted to land with a potential for low public exposure for
30 days? [503.32(b)(5)(viii)
Yes No N/A
11. Is a Vector Attraction Reduction method practiced? [503.15(c) (6)
Yes No N/A
12. Indicate Vector Attraction Reduction method: [503.33(b)
38% Volatile Solids Reduction. [503.33(b)(1) (7)
40-day test - Volatile Solids reduced <17%. [503.33(b)(2) (Anaerobic Digestion
Only)
30-day test - Volatile Solids reduced <15%. [503.33(b)(3)
(Aerobic Digestion Only)
Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate (SOUR) <1.5 mg/hr./gm TS @ 20°C. [503.33(b)(4)
Aerobic Process for >14 days @ >40°C with average sludge temperatures
>45°C. [503.33(b)(5)
pH >12 for 2 hours and pH >11.5 for 22 hours [503.33(b)(6)
Sludge (with no unstabilized solids) contains >75% Total Solids prior to mixing
with other materials. [503.33(b)(7)
Sludge (contains unstabilized solids) contains >90% Total Solids prior to mixing
with other materials. [503.33(b)(8)
Subsurface Injection. [503.33(b)(9)
Soil Incorporation. [503.33(b)(10)
Yes No N/A
13. Are general requirements (503.12) and management practices (503.14) applied
for sludge not meeting Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class pathogen
reduction requirements, and vector attraction reduction methods? [503.10],
[503.12], [503.14]
Yes No N/A
14. Indicate management practices where applicable:
No threatened or endangered species present or critical habitat affected at the
location(s) where bulk sludge is applied.
Bulk sludge not applied to frozen or snow covered ground.
Bulk sludge applied >10 meters from waters of the U.S.
Bulk sludge applied at a rate equal to or less than agronomic rate.
Label affixed on bag or information sheet provided to user of sold and given
away sludge indicating name of sludge preparer, application instructions, and
maximum annual whole sludge application rate.
Yes No N/A
15. Indicate general requirements practiced where applicable:
Sludge is not applied to a site where the cumulative pollutant loading or annual
application rate has been reached.
Notification given to the sludge applier regarding total nitrogen content of the
sludge.
Sufficient information required to comply with 40 CFR Part 503 is given to
preparers/appliers/land owners.
Appendix P - Page 648
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Written notification given to permitting authority (including States) regarding
the location of land application sites, appropriate NPDES permit numbers.
Yes No N/A
16. Description of how management practices are met for each land application site
available?
Comments:
Land Application Footnotes:
(1) Permits are not required. Part 503 is self-implementing. Part 503 does not cover industrial sludges or grit and
screenings.
(2) 503.13(b)(1), Table 1 values must be met to land apply sludge:
Table 1 (mg/kg):
Arsenic 75 Lead 840 Nickel 420
Cadmium 85 Mercury 5757 Selenium 100
Copper 4300 Molybdenum 75 Zinc 7500
(3) 503.13(b)(3), Table 3 must be met for any sludge applied to a lawn or home garden. For bulk sludge, Table 3
must be met or the sludge is subject to cumulative loading limits in 503.13(b)(2). For sewage sludge sold and
given away in a bag or other container, Table 3 must also be met or the sludge is subject to annual pollutant
loadings in 503.13(b)(4). This also signals that additional recordkeeping requirements of 503.12 and 503.17
apply.
Table 2 (mg/kg):
Arsenic 41 Lead 300 Selenium 100
Cadmium 39396 Mercury 17 Zinc 2800
Copper 1500 Nickel 420
(4) Class A requirements must be met when bulk sludge is land applied to a lawn or home garden, or when
sewage sludge is sold or given away in a bag or another container. Also, Class A requirements or Class B
requirements combined with appropriate site restrictions must be met for when bulk or bulk material derived
from sludge is applied to agricultural land, reclamation site, forest, or public contact site.
(5) Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) includes Aerobic Digestion, Air Drying, Anaerobic Digestion,
Composting, and Lime Stabilization. Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) includes Composting, Heat
Drying, Heat Treatment, Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion, Beta Ray Irradiation, Gamma Ray Irradiation, and
Pasteurization. Each process has required operating conditions to demonstrate compliance. See 503 Appendix
B and Unit Process Checklists.
(6) One of the methods 503.33(b)(l)-(10) must be used when land applying bulk sewage sludge to agricultural
land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site. One of the methods 503.33(b)(l)-(8) must be met
when land applying bulk sludge to a lawn or home garden, or when sewage sludge or derived material is sold
or given away in a bag or another container.
(7) Volatile solids reduction through the sludge treatment train [only] is generally calculated using the Van Kleek
equation, following general formula:
% VS Reduction = (Mass of solids in, kg X Mass of solids out, kg) x 100
Mass of solids in, kg
Appendix P - Page 649
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Other Variations of this formula are presented in the document Environmental Regulations and Technology-
Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge, EPA-625/R-92/013. See document for specific
calculations. Website: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/1992/625R92013.html.
F. SURFACE DISPOSAL
Yes No N/A
1. Does each Surface Disposal Unit (SDU) have a liner and leachate collection
system?
2. Smallest distance from active SDU boundary to property boundary is ft.
Yes No N/A
3. For an active SDU (property boundary is greater than 150 meters from SDU) and
without a liner or leachate collection system, do monitoring results show
pollutant concentrations below values shown in 40 CFR Part 503.23(a)(1) Table 1?
[503.23(a)(1)'1'
Yes No N/A
4. For an active SDU without a liner and leachate collection system (property
boundary is less than 150 meters from SDU), do monitoring results show
pollutant concentrations below values shown in 40 CFR Part 503.23(a)(2) Table 2?
[503.23(a)(1)'2'
Yes No N/A
5. Are management practices employed? [503.24]
Yes No N/A
6. List management practices where applicable:
No threatened or endangered species present or critical habitat affected at the
location where bulk sludge is surface disposed.
Surface disposal unit shall not restrict flow of base flood.
If in seismic impact zone, design will withstand recorded horizontal ground
acceleration.
Located > 60 meters from any fault displaced in Holocene time.
Not located in unstable area or wetlands.
Runoff collection and treatment with 25-year, 24-hour storm runoff event
storage capacity.
Leachate collection system operated and maintained for 3 years after closure of
the surface disposal unit.
Leachate treated and disposed of in accordance with applicable requirements,
i.e., NPDES permit.
Methane is contained under covered units at a concentration less than 25% of
the LEL for methane.
Methane is contained under a final cover placed on a closed unit maintained at
a concentration less than 25% of the LEL for methane for three years after
closure.
Methane concentration at the property line is maintained at a concentration
less than the LEL for methane for three years after closure of the unit.
No feed or food crops grown on active unit.'3'
No animal grazing allowed on active unit.'3'
Public access restricted for the period of time while a unit is active and for
three years after last active unit in a site closes.
Appendix P - Page 650
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Sludge placed in an active unit does not contaminate groundwater aquifers.(4)
Yes
No
N/A
7. Classification of Sewage Sludge with respect to Pathogens: [503.30]
Class A Class B Unknown
Yes
No
N/A
8. Are Class A Pathogen reductions requirements met? [503.15(a)(s)
9. Indicate which method is used to meet Class A requirements: [503.32(a)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and Time/Temperature requirements. [503.32(a)(3)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and pH requirements. [503.32(a)(4)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and enteric viruses or helminth ova reduction requirements. [503.32(a)(5)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and enteric viruses or helminth ova density requirements. [503.32(a)(6)
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP). [503.32(a)(7) and [503
Appendix B]
Fecal Coliform <1000 MPN/g total solids, or Salmonella <3 MPN/4 g total solids,
and equivalent PFRP. [503.32(a)(8) and [503 Appendix B](7)
Yes
No
N/A
10. Are Class B Pathogen reduction requirements met? [503.32(b) (5)
11. Indicate which method(s) is used to meet Class B requirements:
Geometric mean of seven Fecal Coliform samples with <2,000,000 MPN/g total
solids or <2,000,000 Colony Forming Units/g total solids. [503.32(b)(2)
Treated by Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP). [503.32(b)(3) and
[503 Appendix B](6»
Treated by equivalent PSRP. [503.32(b)(4) and [503 Appendix B](6)
Yes
No
N/A
12. Is a Vector Attraction Reduction method practiced? [503.25(b)'7'
Yes
No
N/A
13. Indicate Vector Attraction Reduction method: [503.33(b)
38% Volatile Solids Reduction. [503.33(b)(1)
40-day test - Volatile Solids reduced <17%. [503.33(b)(2) (Anaerobic Digestion
Only)
30-day test - Volatile Solids reduced <15%. [503.33(b)(3) (Aerobic Digestion
Only)
Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate (SOUR) <1.5 mg/hr./gm TS @ 20°C. [503.33(b)(4)
Aerobic Process for >14 days @ >40°C with average sludge temperatures
>45°C. [503.33(b)(5)
pH >12 for 2 hours and pH >11.5 for 22 hours [503.33(b)(6)
Sludge (with no unstabilized solids) contains >75% Total Solids prior to mixing
with other materials. [503.33(b)(7)
Sludge (contains unstabilized solids) contains >90% Total Solids prior to mixing
with other materials. [503.33(b)(8)
Appendix P - Page 651
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Subsurface Injection. [503.33(b)(9)
Soil Incorporation. [503.33(b)(10)
Sludge covered with soil or other material at the end of the day. [503.33(b)(ll)
Yes No N/A 14. Have any SDUs been closed?
Yes No N/A 15. Has facility submitted closure and post closure plan for any active SDU 180 days
prior to closing? [503.22(c)
Comments:
Surface Disposal Footnotes:
(1) Table 1 of 503.23(a)(1) must be met for all sludge placed in an active surface disposal unit with a distance of
greater than 150 meters from the boundary of the surface disposal unit to the property line. Site-specific limits
can also be set by the permitting authority in accordance with 503.23(b).
Table 1 (mg/kg - dry weight basis)
Arsenic 73 Chromium 600 Nickel 420
(2) Table 2 of 503.23(a)(2) must be met for all sludge placed in an active surface disposal unit with a distance of
less than 150 meters from the boundary of the surface disposal unit to the property line. Site-specific limits can
also be set by the permitting authority in accordance with 503.23(b).
Table 2 (mg/kg - dry weight basis)
Distance between unit boundary Pollutant Concentration (mg/kg)
and property line (m)
Arsenic
Chromium
Nickel
0 to less than 25
30
200
210
25 to less than 50
34
220
240
50 to less than 75
39
260
270
75 to less than 100
46
300
320
100 to less than 125
53
360
390
125 to less than 150
62
450
420
(3) Unless specific approval from the permitting authority has been obtained by the facility.
(4) Facility must have results of groundwater monitoring study developed by a qualified groundwater scientist or
a certification from a qualified groundwater scientist to demonstrate no contamination.
(5) Facility must meet Class A pathogen reduction requirements of 503.32(a) or Class B 503.32(b)(2) through
(b)(4) unless vector attraction reduction method 503.33(b)(ll), covering sludge at the end of the day, is used.
(6) Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) includes Aerobic Digestion, Air Drying, Anaerobic Digestion,
Composting, and Lime Stabilization. Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) includes Composting, Heat
Drying, Heat Treatment, Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion, Beta Ray Irradiation, Gamma Ray Irradiation, and
Pasteurization. Each process has required operating conditions to demonstrate compliance. See 503 Appendix
B and Unit Process Checklist.
(7) Facility must meet vector attraction reduction requirements of 503.33(b) to surface dispose sludge.
Appendix P - Page 652
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
G. SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
Yes
No
N/A
1. Does the incinerator meet the definition of a sewage sludge incinerator?
Yes
No
N/A
2. Do sewage sludge monitoring results show pollutant concentrations below
permit limits?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Does THC monitoring show concentrations below 100 ppm (monthly average)?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Are there instruments installed that continuously measure and record THC (or
alternatively CO), oxygen concentration, moisture content, and combustion
temperatures?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Is the THC instrument calibrated as required by 503.45 (once every 24-hour
period using propane) or the permit?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Are the other instruments calibrated as required by the permit?
Yes
No
N/A
7. Are the instruments operated and maintained as specified by the permit?
Yes
No
N/A
8. How many times was the incinerator operated at above the maximum
combustion temperature specified in the permit?
For how long was the incinerator in operation above the maximum combustion
temperature?
Yes
No
N/A
9. How many times was the incinerator operated outside the range of the air
pollution control devices operating parameters specified in the permit?
For how long was the incinerator in operation outside the ranges?
Yes
No
N/A
10. Are the following records maintained:
Yes
No
N/A
Concentration of lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel in the sewage
sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator.
Yes
No
N/A
THC concentrations in the exit gas.
Yes
No
N/A
Information that indicates NESHAP for beryllium in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 61 is
met.
Yes
No
N/A
Information that indicates NESHAP for mercury in Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 61 is
met.
Yes
No
N/A
Combustion temperatures, including maximum combustion temperature.
Yes
No
N/A
Values for air pollution control device operating parameters.
Yes
No
N/A
Oxygen concentration.
Yes
No
N/A
Information used to measure moisture content in the exit gas.
Yes
No
N/A
Sewage sludge feed rate.
Yes
No
N/A
Stack height of incinerator.
Yes
No
N/A
Dispersion factor for the site.
Yes
No
N/A
Control efficiency for lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel.
Yes
No
N/A
Risk specific concentration for chromium (if applicable).
Yes
No
N/A
Calibration and maintenance log for the instruments used to measure THC (or
CO), oxygen concentration, moisture content, and combustion temperatures.
Appendix P - Page 653
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sludge Inspection Checklist
Yes No N/A
Are these records maintained for 5 years?
Yes No N/A
11. Have all instances of noncompliance been reported as specified by the permit?
Comments:
Appendix P - Page 654
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix Q -
No Exposure Certification Form
Appendix Q- Page 655
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NPDES
FORM
3510-11
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for Exclusion from
NPDES Storm Water Permitting
Form Approved
OMB No. 2040-0211
Submission of this No Exposure Certification constitutes notice that the entity identified in Section A does not require permit authorization tor its storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity in ihe State identified in Section B under EPA's Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit due to the existence
of a condition of no exposure.
A condition of no exposure exists at an industrial facility when all industrial materials and activities are protected by a storm resistant shelter to prevent
exposure to rain. snow, snowmett. and/or runoff. Industrial materials or activities include, but are not limited to, material handling equipment or activities,
industrial machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, by-products, final products, or waste products. Material handling activities include the storage,
loading and unloading, transportation, or conveyance of any raw material, intermediate product, final product or waste product. A storm resistant shelter is
not required for the following industrial materials and activities:
- drums, barrels, tanks, and similar containers that are tightly sealed, provided those containers are not deteriorated and do net leak. "Sealed"
means banded or otherwise secured and without operational taps or valves;
- adequately maintained vehicles used in material handling; and
- final products, other than products that would be mobilized in storm water discharges (e.g., rock salt).
A No Exposure Certification must be provided for each facility qualifying for the no exposure exclusion In addition, the exclusion from NPDES permitting is
available on a facility-wide basis only, not for individual outfalls. If any industrial activities or materials are or will be exposed to precipitation, the facility is
not eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
By signing and submitting this No Exposure Certification form, the entity in Section A is certifying that a condition of no exposure exists at its facility or site,
and is obligated to comply with the terms and con citrons of 40 CFR 122.26(g).
ALL INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON THIS FORM.
Detailed instructions for completing this form and obtaining the no exposure exclusion are provided on pages 3 and 4.
A, Facility Operator Information
1. Name: [_|_ j | | | |_
3. Mailing Address a Street'
b. City: i I [ I I I I
c. State:
J 2, Phone-
I I I I
d Zip Code
B. Facility/Site Location Information
1. Facility Name;
2. a. Street Address: I [. LJ J L.
b. City: 111!
d. State; | [ | e Zip Code
3. Is the facility located on Indian Lands?
4. Is this a Federal facility?
5. a Latitude | ¦ I ' | > [ [ |
I I I I
c County
Yes ~
Yes ~
No ~
No ~
b. Longitude;
6. a Was the facility or site previously covered under an NPDES storm wafer permit?
b. Ifyes, enter NPDES permit number:
7. SIC/Activity Codes: Primary: [ [ | [ [ Secondary (if applicable): [_
Yes Q No ~
8. Total size of site associated with industrial activity:
acres
9, a. Have you paved or roofed over a formerly exposed, pervious area in order to qualify for the no exposure exclusion?
Yes ~ No ~
b. If yes, please indicate approximately how much area was paved or roofed over. Completing this question does not disqualify you for the no exposure
exclusion. However, your permitting authority may use this information in considering whether storm water discharges from your site are likely to have
an adverse impact on water quality, in which case you could be required to obtain permit coverage.
Less than one acre j |
One to five acres [ j
More than five acres | j
EPA Form 3510-11 (06/03)
Page 1 of 4
Appendix Q- Page 656
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NPOES
FORM
3510-11
g*.PEU% NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for Exclusion from
** NPDES Storm Water Permitting
Form Approved
OMB No. 2040-0211
C. Exposure Checklist
Are any of the following materials or activities exposed to precipitation, now or in the foreseeable future?
(Please check either "Yes" or' No" in the appropriate box.) If you answer "Yes" to any of these questions
(1) through (11), you are not eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
Yes No
1. Using, storing or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment, and areas where residuals from using, storing Q [H
or cleaning industrial machinery or equipment remain and are exposed to storm water
Materials or residuals on the ground or in storm water inlets from spills/leaks Q [~j
Materials or products from past industrial activity L] [ j
Material handling equipment (except adequately maintained vehicles) Q | j
Materials or products during loading/unloading or transporting activities |H] [Jj
Materials or products stored outdoors (except final products intended for outside use [e.g.. new cars] where P] | |
exposure to storm water does not result in the discharge of pollutants)
Materials contained in open, deteriorated or leaking storage drums, barrels, tanks, and similar containers []] Q]
Materials or products handled/stored on roads or railways owned or maintained by the discharger Q] | j
Waste material (except waste in covered, non-leaking containers [e.g., dumpstersj) Q] [j
10. Application or disposal of process wastewater (unless otherwise permitted) [H
11. Particulate matter or visible deposits of residuals from roof stacks and/or vents not otherwise regulated Q] | I
(i.e., under an air quality control permit) and evident in the storm water outflow
D. Certification Statement
I certify under penalty of law that J have read and understand the eligibility requirements for claiming a condition of "no exposure" and obtaining an
exclusion from NPDES storm water permitting.
I certify under penalty of law that there are no discharges of storm water contaminated by exposure to industrial activities or materials from the industrial
facility or site identified in this document (except as allowed under 40 CFR 122.26(g)(2)).
I understand that I am obligated to submit a no exposure certification form once every five years to the NPDES permitting authority and, if requested, to
the operator of the iocs! municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) into which the facility discharges (where applicable). I understand that 1 must
allow the NPDES permitting authority, or MS4 operator where the discharge is into the local MS4, to perform inspections to confirm the condition of no
exposure and to make such inspection reports publicly available upon request. I understand that 1 must obtain coverage under an NPDES permit prior
to any point source discharge of storm water from the facility.
Additionally, I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a
system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my
knowledge and belief true, accurate and complete, I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility
of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Print Name: 1 t t 1 I 1 I i 1 1 i I 1 I I I i 1 i i 1 1 I 1 j I [ I ! ! I t 1 I
Print Title: I I I I I i i I I [ i I [ i [ [ I I ¦ [ I I i 1 I I i [ I I I ( I i
Signature:
Date: I I I I 1 I I
EPA Form 3510-11 (08/03) Page 2 of 4
Appendix Q- Page 657
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NPDES
FORM
3510-11
Instructions for the NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for
Exclusion from NPDES Storm Water Permitting
Form Approved
OMB No. 2040-0211
Who May File a No Exposure Certification
Federal law at 40 CFR Pari 122.26 prohibits point source discharges of
storm water associated with industrial activity to waters of the U.S. without
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. However,
NPDES permit coverage is not required for discharges of storm water
associated with industrial activities identified at 40 CFR 122.26{b)(14)(i)-
(ix5 and (xi) if the discharger can certify that a condition of "'no exposure"
exists at the industrial facility or site.
Storm water discharges from construction activities identified in 40 CFR
122.26(bX14j(x) and(b)(15) are not eligible for the no exposure exclusion.
Obtaining and Maintaining the No Exposure Exclusion
This form is used to certify that a condition of no exposure exists at the
industrial facility or site described herein. This certification is only applicable
in Jurisdictions where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority and must be
re-submitted at least once every five years.
The industrial facility operator must maintain a condition of no exposure at
its facility or site in order for the no exposure exclusion to remain applicable.
If conditions change resulting in the exposure of materials and activities to
storm water, the facility operator must obtain coverage under an NPDES
storm water permit immediately.
Where to File the No Exposure Certification Form
No Exposure Forms sent regular mail:
SW No Exposure Certification (4203M)
USEm
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington, D C. 20460
Completing the Form
Forms sent overnioht/express:
SW No Exposure Certification
US EPA East Building, Rm 7329
1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington. D C 20004
(202) 564-9537
You must type or print, using uppercase letters, in appropriate areas only.
Enter only one character per space (i.e., between the marks). Abbreviate
if necessary to stay within the number of characters allowed for each item.
Use one space for breaks between words. One form must be completed
for each facility or site for which you are seeking to certify a condition of no
exposure. Additional guidance on completing this form can be accessed
through EPA's web site at www epa gov/owm/sw. Please make sure you
have addressed all applicable questions and have made a photocopy for
your records before sending the completed form to the above address.
Section A. Facility Operator information
1. Provide the legal name of the person, firm, public organization, or any
other entity that operates the facility or site described in this certification.
The name of the operator may or may not be the same as the name of
the facility. The operator is the legal entity that controls the facility's
operation, rather than the plant or site manager.
2. Provide the telephone number of the facility operator.
3. Provide the mailing address of the operator {P.O. Box numbers may be
used). Include the city, state, and zip code. All correspondence will
be sent to this address.
Section S. Facility/Site Location information
1. Enter the official or legal name of the facility or site.
2. Enter the complete street address (if no street address exists, provide
a geographic description [e.g , Intersection of Routes 9 and 55]), city,
county, state, and zip code Do not use a P.O. Box number.
3 Indicate whether the feciitty is located on Indian Lands,
4. Indicate whether the industrial facility is operated by a department or
agency of the Federal Government (see also Section 313 of the Clean
Water Act).
5. Enter the latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the facility
or site in degrees/minutes/seconds. Latitude and longitude can
be obtained from United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
or topographic maps, by calling 1-(888) ASK-USGS. or by accessing
EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/owm/sw/industry/rndex.htm and
selecting Latitude and Longitude Finders under the Resources/Permit
section.
Latitude and longitude for a facility in decimal form must be converted
to degrees ( ), minutes ('), and seconds c") for proper entry on
the certification form. To convert decimal latitude or longitude to
degrees/minutes/seconds, follow the steps in the following example,
Example Convert decimal latitude 45.1234567 to degrees (°). minutes
('), and seconds (").
a) The numbers to the left of the decimal point are the degrees: 45",
b) To obtain minutes, multiply the first four numbers to the right of the
decimal point by 0.006: 1234 x 0.006 = 7.404.
c) The numbers to the (eft of the decimal point in the result obtained
in (b) are the minutes: T.
d) To obtain seconds, multiply the remaining three numbers to the
right of the decimal from the result obtained in (b) by 0.06:
404 x 0.06 - 24.24, Since the numbers to the right of the decimal
point are not used, the result is 24".
e) The conversion for 45.1234567 = 45° T 24".
6. Indicate whether the facility was previously covered under an NPDES
storm water permit. If so, include the permit number.
7. Enter the 4-digit SIC code which identifies the facility's primary activity,
and second 4-digit SIC code identifying the facility's secondary activity
if applicable. SIC codes can be obtained from the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, 1987-
8. Enter the total size of the site associated with industrial activity in acres.
Acreage may be determined by dividing square footage by 43,560, as
demonstrated in the following example.
Example: Convert 54,450 ft2 to acres
Divide 54,450 ft2 by 43,560 square feet per acre:
54,450 ft2 - 43,560 ft2/acre = 1.25 acres.
9. Check "Yes" or "No" as appropriate to indicate whether you have paved
or roofed over a formerly exposed, pervious area (i.e., lawn, meadow,
dirt or gravel road/parking lot) in order to qualify for no exposure. If yes,
also indicate approximately how much area was paved or roofed over
and is now impervious area.
Em Form 3510-11 (06/03) Page 3 of 4
Appendix Q- Page 658
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NPDES
FORM
3510-11
instructions for the NO EXPOSURE CERTIFICATION for
Exclusion from NPDES Storm Water Permitting
Form Approved
OMB No. 2040-0211
Section C, Exposure Checklist
Check "Yes" or "No" as appropriate to describe the exposure conditions at
your facility, If you answer "Yes" to ANY of the questions (1) through (11)
in this section, a potential for exposure exists at your site and you cannot
certify to a condition of no exposure. You must obtain (or already have)
coverage under an NPDES storm water permit. After obtaining permit
coverage, you can institute modifications to eliminate the potential for a
discharge of storm water exposed to industrial activity, and then certify to
a condition of no exposure.
Section D, Certification Statement
Federal statutes provide for severe penalties for submitting false information
on this application form. Federal regulations require this application to be
signed as follows:
For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer, which means:
(i) president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation
in charge of a principal business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the
corporation, or
(is) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities, provided the manager is authorized to make
management decisions which govern the operation of the
regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of
making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating
and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long
term environmental compliance with environmental laws and
regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems
are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate
information for permit application requirements: and where
authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to
the manager in accordance with corporate procedures:
For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the
proprietor; or
For a municipal, State, Federal, or other public facility: by either a
principal executive or ranking elected official.
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
Public reporting burden for this certification is estimated to average 1.0 hour
per certification, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose to provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions: develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating,
and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to> a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, any other aspect of the collection of information, or
suggestions for improving this form, including any suggestions which may
increase or reduce this burden to: Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division (2137). USEPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Include the OMB control number of this form on any correspondence. Do
not send the completed No Exposure Certification form to this address.
EPA Form 3510-11 (06/03)
Page 4 of 4
Appendix Q- Page 659
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix R -
NPDES Industrial Storm Water Investigation and
Case Development (Industrial)
Appendix R - Page 660
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Background Information (complete in field)
National Database Information
General
Inspection Type
W
Inspector Name
NPDES ID Number
Telephone
Inspection Date
Entry Time
Inspection Type
EPA State EPA Oversight
Exit Time
Facility Type
Signature
Facilitv Location Information
Name/Location/
Mailing Address
GPS Coordinates
Latitude
Longitude
Receiving
Water(s)/MS4's
Contact Information
Name
Telephone
Owner/Permittee
Operator
Co-Permittee
Facility Contact
Authorized Official(s)
Site Information:
Industrial Activity
that qualifies the
facility for permit
coverage
SIC Code(s)
No Exposure
Certification
Appendix R - Page 661
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Basic Permit Information (circle one)
Permit Coverage
Y
N
Permit Type
General
Individual
Copy of NOI on-site?
Y
N
NOI Date
Basic SWPPP Information
SWPPP on-site
Y
N
SWPPP Satisfactory*
Y
N
SWPPP Implementation Satisfactory
Y
N
*A Satisfactory SWPPP must be both current and
complete (see pages 4, 5, and 6 of this checklist).
SWPPP Review (can be completed in office)
General
Notes:
Is there a SWPPP?
Y
N
Is a copy of the SWPPP on-site?
Y
N
Was the SWPPP developed before the
submittal of the NOI?
Y
N
Did all "operators" and co-permittees sign
the SWPPP?
Y
N
Did the signatures include the certification
statement?
Y
N
Were the signatories authorized to sign?
Y
N
Was the SWPPP developed specifically for
this site?
Y
N
Has it been revised to address any recent
changes to operations on-site?
Y
N
Is an individual/team responsible for
developing/implementing SWPPP identified
(e.g., pollution prevention team)?
Y
N
Are employee training records regarding
storm water pollution prevention topics
included in SWPPP?
Y
N
Operator evaluation of ESA requirements.
Y
N
Appendix R - Page 662
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Site Mao
Notes:
Is there a legible site map?
Y
N
Drainage patterns/outfalls?
Y
N
Identification of types of pollutants likely to
be discharged from each drainage area?
Y
N
Location of major structural controls used to
reduce pollutants in runoff?
Y
N
Name of receiving water(s) or MS4's listed?
Y
N
Is receiving water a tributary to waters of
the U.S. (if "yes" indicate name of tributary)?
Y
N
Location of significant materials exposed to
storm water?
Y
N
Locations of major spills occurring
within 3 years from date of NOI?
Y
N
Location of fueling, deicing operations,
maintenance, loading and unloading,
material storage, waste disposal?
Y
N
Summarv of Potential Pollutant Sources
Notes:
Description of activities, materials,
features of site with potential to
contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to storm water?
Y
N
If deicing chemicals are used, is there a
record of (1) all the types of chemicals
used, including Safety Data Sheets, and
(2) monthly quantities, either as
measured or using best estimates?
Y
N
Description of the vehicle and equipment
wash water disposal method, including
the (1) frequency, (2) volume, and (3)
destination of said wash water?
Y
N
Description of the control measures used
for collecting or containing contaminated
melt water from collection areas used for
disposal of contaminated snow?
Y
N
Significant Spills & Leaks Notes:
Appendix R - Page 663
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of significant spills and leaks over 3-
Y
N
year time period, description of response
taken, and actions to prevent similar spills
in the future?
Storm Water Controls
Notes:
Does the SWPPP describe the non-
structural controls that will be used to
prevent/reduce discharge of pollutants in
storm water runoff?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP describe the structural
controls that will be used to
prevent/reduce discharge of pollutants in
storm water runoff?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP describe other controls
that will be used to prevent/reduce off-
site tracking or blowing of sediment, dust
and raw, final or waste materials, or
other solid materials and floating debris?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP incorporate the 8
baseline controls (good housekeeping,
minimizing exposure, PM, spill
prevention/response procedures, routine
inspections and comprehensive site
evaluations, employee training, sediment
and erosion control, runoff
management)?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP contain completed
routine inspection reports/logs regarding
reportable implementation of 8 baseline
controls?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP describe the pollutant or
activity to be controlled by each selected
control and provide an implementation
schedule?
Y
N
Appendix R - Page 664
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Non-Storm Water Discharges
Notes:
Certification that facility has been tested
for non-storm water discharges from the
site?
Y
N
Description of testing method, drainage
points, observed results, and date of
test?
Y
N
Inspections
Self-lnsoections
Notes:
In what areas does the airport authority
conduct facility inspections?
Are routine facility inspections conducted
at least once each calendar quarter, with
at least one member of the SWPPP team
participating?
Y
N
Are routine facility inspections conducted
at least once each calendar year during a
period when a stormwater discharge in
occurring?
Y
N
During each inspection are the following
examined:
• Industrial materials, residue or
trash that may have come in contact with
stormwater
• Leaks or spills from industrial
equipment, drums, tanks, and other
containers
• Offsite tracking of industrial waste
materials, or sediment where vehicles
enter or exit the site
• Tracking or blowing of raw, final or
waste materials from areas of no
exposure to exposed areas
• Control measures needing
replacement, maintenance or repair
Y
N
Are the routine facility inspection findings
documented and maintained with the
SWPPP?
Y
N
Does the annual report include the
following:
Y
N
Appendix R - Page 665
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Self-lnsoections
Notes:
• The inspection date and time;
• The name(s) and signature(s) of the
inspector(s);
• Weather information;
• All observations relating to the
implementation of control measures at
the facility;
• Any incidents of noncompliance;
and
• A statement, signed and certified.
Deicing Operations (if applicable)
Deicing
Notes:
What deicing chemicals does the airport
authority use for aircraft and runway
deicing?
What control measures does the airport
authority implement to reduce discharge
of pollutants from runway and aircraft
deicing operations?
Has the airport authority determined
whether alternatives to glycol are
feasible?
What runoff management control
measures does the airport authority
implement to minimize the discharge of
pollutants in stormwater from runway
and aircraft deicing?
Has the airport authority ever applied
deicing fluids during non-precipitation
events?
What control measures does the airport
authority implement to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from deicing fluids
that are applied during non-precipitation
events?
What is the seasonal timeframe during
which deicing activities typically occur?
Appendix R - Page 666
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Sampling
Monitoring
Notes:
Are samples collected within 30 minutes
of measurable weather events occurring
72 hours after previous measurable
weather event?
Y
N
Are sampling locations appropriate?
Y
N
Were the samples collected and
preserved in accordance with 40 CFR Part
136?
Y
N
Were proper chain-of-custody
procedures followed?
Y
N
SWPPP Implementation (complete infield)
General
Industrial Activity
(describe principal product, production rate, potential pollutants, areas exposed to
precipitation, direction of storm water flow)
Facility Description
(describe age and size of facility, number of employees, hours of operation)
Storm Water Controls
List the structural
(provide a brief description of each)
and non-structural
controls employed
by the facility.
Appendix R - Page 667
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Storm Water Controls
Are the controls
reasonable and
appropriate
for the facility?
(indicate "yes" or "no", or if not appropriate, explain)
Are the controls
installed correctly
and maintained in
effective
operating
condition?
(indicate "yes" or "no", or if not appropriate, explain)
Are the structural
and non-structural
controls employed
by the facility
consistent with the
SWPPP?
(indicate "yes" or "no" and explain any observed discrepancies)
Provide a brief
description of other
controls that
manage/prevent/
minimize storm
water runoff.
(e.g., erosion and sediment controls, exposure minimization, diversion structures,
pollution prevention, inlet protection/control at storm drains)
Appendix R - Page 668
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Miscellaneous
Any evidence of
discharge to
receiving waters?
(e.g., storm water runoff, dry weather discharge, co-mingling of process waste water)
Do the storm water
outfalls on-site
correspond with
those listed on the
site map and in
SWPPP?
(indicate "yes" or "no", or if not appropriate, explain)
Photograph Log
1.
2.
3.
Appendix R - Page 669
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix S -
Industrial Source Control BMP Questions
Appendix S - Page 670
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Industrial Source Control BMP Questions
FUELING
1. Has spill and overfill prevention equipment been installed?
2. Are vehicle fuel tanks often "topped off"?
3. Have steps been taken to protect fueling areas from rain?
4. Is runon to the fueling area minimized?
5. Are oil/water separators or oil and grease traps installed in storm drains in the fueling area?
6. Is the fueling area cleaned by hosing or washing?
7. Do you control petroleum spills?
8. Are employees aware of ways to reduce contamination of storm water at fueling stations?
9. Where does the water drain from the fueling area?
10. Do any of the drains connect to wells?
SUMMARY OF FUELING STATION BMPs
¦ Consider installing spill and overflow protection.
¦ Discourage topping off of fuel tanks.
¦ Reduce exposure of the fuel area to storm water.
¦ Use dry cleanup methods for the fuel area.
¦ Use proper petroleum spill control.
¦ Encourage employee participation.
MAINTAINING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Is maintenance which involves cleaning of vehicle and/or equipment parts (including engine,
transmission, brake or other miscellaneous parts) performed on-site?
2. Does the cleaning involve the use of solvents or surfactants?
3. Has the facility looked into using nontoxic or less toxic cleaners or solvents?
4. Are work areas and spills washed or hosed down with water?
5. Are spills or materials washed or poured down the drain?
6. Are oil filters completely drained before recycling or disposal?
7. Are incoming vehicles and equipment checked for leaking oil and fluids?
8. Are wrecked vehicles or damaged equipment stored onsite?
9. Does the facility recycle any of the automotive fluids or parts?
10. Can the facility reduce the number of different solvents used?
11. Are wastes separated?
12. Does the facility use recycled products?
Appendix S - Page 671
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SUMMARY OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BMPs
¦ Check for leaking oil and fluids.
¦ Use nontoxic or low-toxicity materials.
¦ Drain oil filters before disposal or recycling.
¦ Do not pour liquid waste down drains.
¦ Recycle engine fluids and batteries.
¦ Segregate and label wastes.
¦ Buy recycled products.
PAINTING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Are vehicles or other equipment painted on-site?
2. In preparation for painting, is old paint removed physically (sanding, sand blasting, etc.) or
chemically (solvent paint stripper)?
3. Before applying new paint, are surfaces chemically prepared (coating, etching, cleaning etc.)?
4. Is care taken to prevent paint wastes from contaminating storm water runoff?
5. Are wastes from sanding contained?
6. Are parts inspected before painting?
7. Is the facility using painting equipment that creates little waste?
8. Are employees trained to use spray equipment correctly?
9. Does the facility recycle paint, paint thinner, or solvents?
10. Are wastes separated?
11. Can the facility reduce the number of solvents used?
12. Does the facility use recycled products?
SUMMARY OF PAINTING OPERATION BMPs
¦ Inspect parts prior to painting.
¦ Contain sanding wastes.
¦ Prevent paint waste from contacting storm water.
¦ Use proper interim storage of waste paint, solvents, etc.
¦ Evaluate efficiency of equipment.
¦ Recycle paint, paint thinner, and solvents.
¦ Segregate wastes.
¦ Buy recycled products.
WASHING VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
1. Has the facility considered using phosphate-free biodegradable detergents?
2. Are vehicles, equipment, or parts washed over the open ground?
Appendix S - Page 672
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SUMMARY OF VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT WASHING BMPs
Consider use of phosphate-free detergent.
Use designated cleaning areas.
Consider recycling wash water.
LOADING AND UNLOADING MATERIALS
1. Are tank trucks and material delivery vehicles located where spills or leaks can be contained?
2. Is loading/unloading equipment checked regularly for leaks?
3. Are loading/unloading docks or areas covered to prevent exposure to rainfall?
4. Are loading/unloading areas designed to prevent storm water runon?
5. Is piping system routinely checked for leaks?
6. Are there alarms to alert staff of potential problems such as high levels in receiving tanks or
pressure irregularities in transmission lines?
7. Where appropriate (especially where transmission lines are long or buried), is the piping system
outfitted with flow meters to ensure that the amount unloaded equals the amount received?
SUMMARY OF LOADING/UNLOADING OPERATIONS BMPs
Contain leaks during transfer.
Check equipment regularly for leaks.
Limit exposure of material to rainfall.
Prevent storm water runon.
LIQUID STORAGE IN ABOVE-GROUND TANKS
1. Do storage tanks contain liquid hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or oil?
2. Are operators trained in correct operating procedures and safety activities?
3. Does the facility have safeguards against accidental discharge?
4. Are tank systems inspected, and is tank integrity tested regularly?
5. Are tanks bermed or surrounded by a secondary containment system?
SUMMARY OF BMPs FOR LIQUID STORAGE IN ABOVE-GROUND TANKS
¦ Comply with applicable State and Federal laws.
¦ Properly train employees.
¦ Install safeguards against accidental release.
¦ Routinely inspect tanks and equipment.
¦ Consider installing secondary containment.
Appendix S - Page 673
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND OUTSIDE MANUFACTURING
1. Has the facility looked for ways to reduce waste at the facility?
2. Has the facility considered waste reduction BMPs?
3. Are industrial waste management and outside manufacturing areas checked often for spills and
leaks?
4. Are industrial waste management areas or manufacturing activities covered, enclosed, or bermed?
5. Are vehicles used to transport wastes to the land disposal or treatment site equipped with anti-spill
equipment?
6. Does the facility use loading systems that minimize spills and fugitive losses such as dust or mists?
7. Are sediments or wastes prevented from being tracked offsite?
8. Is storm water runoff minimized from the land disposal site?
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND OUTSIDE MANUFACTURING BMPs
¦ Conduct a waste reduction assessment.
¦ Institute industrial waste source reduction and recycling BMPs.
¦ Prevent runoff and runon from contacting the waste management area.
¦ Minimize runoff from land application sites.
OUTSIDE STORAGE OF RAW MATERIALS. BY-PRODUCTS. OR FINISHED PRODUCTS
1. Are materials protected from rainfall, runon, and runoff?
SUMMARY OF BMPs FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE OF RAW MATERIALS, BY-PRODUCTS, OR FINISHED
PRODUCTS
Cover or enclose materials.
SALT STORAGE
1. Are salt piles protected from rain?
2. Is storm water runon prevented from contacting storage piles and loading and unloading areas?
SUMMARY OF SALT STORAGE FACILITIES BMPs
Put salt under a roof.
Use temporary covers.
Enclose or berm transfer areas.
Appendix S - Page 674
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix T -
Notice of Termination for Stormwater
Appendix T - Page 675
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
THIS FORM REPLACES FORM 351 f-T (8-3B> Forrr Approved 0\B Nos tW-CfiSS and ?040-0211
Refer to the ^ollov/ing Page for Instructions
NPDES
FORM
oEPA
U- on of this Notice of Termination cor strifes notice that the pasty identified >r Section I' oftb;s form is -o longer
authorized to discharge storm water associated with construction act-vifv u~dor the NPCE3 program frs.™> the site identified In
Sec ton III of this form. All necessary inforrr.aton must be included on this form, Refer to the instructions at the end of this form.
. Permit Information
NPDES Storm Water General Permit Tracking Number:
Reason for Termination (Check only one):
~ Final stabilization has been achieved on all portions of the site for which you are responsible,
~ Anotner operator has assumed control, according to Appendix G, Section 11.C of the CGP, over all areas of the site that
have not been finally stabilized
| | Coverage under an alternative NPDES permit has been obtained,
~ For residential construction only, temporary stabilization has been completed and the residence has been transferred to the
homeowner.
II. Operator Information
Name:
IRS Employer Identification Number (EIN):
Hailing Address:
Street:
City: State; Zip Code:
Phone: - - Fax (optional):
E-mail (optional):
III. Project/Site Information
Project/Site Name:
Project Street/Location:
City: i ; : i i i i i ; i : : ; ¦ State: | Zip Code:
County or similar government subdivision;
IV. Certification information
—
I certify under penalty of lawlhatthis document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure fiat qualified personnel property gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am avwre that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Print Name:
Print Title;
Signature:
Date;
EPA Form #510-13 (Rev, 6/03)
Appendix T - Page 676
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
instructions for Completing EPA form 3510-13
Notice of Termination {NOT) of Coverage Under an NPDES General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
NPDES Form This Form Replaces Form 3517-7 (8-98)
Who May Fll» an SOT form
Permittees who are presently covered under the EPA-issued National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Peimit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity may
submit an NOT form when final stabilization has been achieved en all
potions of the site lor which you are responsible, another operator has
assumed control in accordance with Appendix G. Section 11 C of the
General Pemmit ewer all areas of the site that have not been finally
stabilized; coverage under an alternative MPDES permit has been
obtained; or for residential construction only, t«ropoiny stabilisation has
been completed and the residence has been transferred to the
homeowner,
"Final stabilization means that all soil disturbing activities at the site have
been completed and that a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a
density of at leasl 70% of the native background vegetative cover for the
area has been established on a# unpaved areas and areas not covered
by peinmnent structures of equivalent permanent stabilization measures
(such as the use of riprap, gabions, or geofexhles) have been employed
See "final ¦stabilization' definition in Appendix A of the Construction
General Permit for further guidance where background native vegetation
covers less than 100 percent of the ground in and or semi-arid areas, for
individual lots in residential construction, and for construction projects on
land used for agricultural purposes.
Completing the Form
Type or pnnt, using uppercase letters, in the appropriate areas only
Please place each character between the marks Abbreviate if necessary
to stay within the number of characters allowed for each item Use only
one space for breaks between words, but not for punctuation martss
unless they ate needed to clarify your response If you have any
questions about this form, refer to mw epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp or
telephone the Storm Water Notice Processing Center at i866> 352-7755
Please submit original document with signature in ink ~ do not send a
photocopied signature
Section I. Permit Number
Enter the existing NPDES Storm Water General Permit Tracking Number
assigned to the project by EPA s Storm Water Notice Processing Center
If you do not know the permit tracking number, refer to
»»* epa govfiipdesfstoirtmaimfegp or contact the Storm Water Notice
Processing Center at (888i 352-7758,
Indicate your reason for submitting this Metiee of Termination by checking
the appropriate box. Check only one:
Final stahileatitm has been achieved an ail portions at fte site for
vrhichyou me responsible.
Another operator has asmmmt oonto.' according to Appendix G,
Section 1 f.C over til areas of lite sits that htvc not been finally
sfaWfcecf,
Coverage under an a/lemative NPDES permit has been obtained.
For resicfenftsf construction only, if temporary swbiinatm has been
eonfjfcfed and the residence has been transferred to the
homeowner.
Section It. Operator Information
Provide the legal nam* of the person, firm, public organization, or any
other entity that operate* the project described in this application and Is
covered by the permit tricking number identifled in Section I The
form Approved OMB Nos. 2040-0086 and 2040-0211
operator of the project is the legal entity that contiots the site operation,
lather than the site manager Piovicte the employer identification number
lEIN from the Internal Revenue Service, IRSi If the applicant does not
have an EIM enter NA in the space provided Enter the complete mailing
address and telephone number of the operator Optional, enter the fa*
number and e-mail address of the operator
Section III. Project/Site Infotmatlan
Enter the official or legal name and complete street address, including city,
state zip code, and county or siroilai government subdivision of the project
or site, If the project or site lacks a street address, indicate the general
location of the site (eg Intersection of State Highways 81 and 34),
Complete site information must be prowled for tetmlnation of permit
coverage to be valid
Section IV, Certification Information
All applications, including NO Is, must be signed as follows:
For a corporatiotr By a responsible corporate officer For the purpose of
this Part, a responsible corporate officer means, ui a president, secretary,
treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation « charge of a principal
business function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or
decision-making functions for the corporation or in} the manager of one or
more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities provided, the
manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the
operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit
duty of making major capital investment recommendations and initiating
and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long-term
environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations the
manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions
taken to gather complete ana accurate information for permit application
requirements, and where authority to sign documents has been assigned
or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures
For a partnership or sole proprietorship By a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively: or
For a municipality, stats, federal, or other public agency: By either a
principal executive oftcer or ranking elected official. For purposes of this
Part, a principal executive officer of a federal agency includes ft) the chief
executive office* of the agency or till a senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operations of a principal olographic umj of the
agency t» g, Regional Administrator of EPAi
include the name and title of the person siflnino the form and the date of
signing An unsigned or undated NOT form will not be considered valid
termination of permit coverage
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
Public importing butden tor this application is estimated to average 0 5
hours per notice, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information An aoency may not
conduct or sponsor, and s person is not required to respond to, 8 celection
of information unless it displays a currently valsd OMB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, any other aspect of the
collection of information, or suggestions for improving this form including
any suggestions which may increase ct reduce this burden to Chief,
Information Policy Branch. 2138, US Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, W ashingtcn, DC 204SO Include the
OMB number on any correspondence Do not sent the completed form lo
this address.
EPA Form 3510-13 (Rev, 6/03)
Appendix T - Page 677
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix U -
Typical "C" Coefficients
Appendix U - Page A-678
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
TYPICAL "c" COEFFICIENTS
FOR 5- TO 10-YEAR FREQUENCY DESIGN STORMS
Description of Area
Runoff Coefficients
Business
¦ Downtown areas
0.70-0.95
¦ Neighborhood areas
0.50-0.70
Residential
¦ Single-family areas
0.30-0.50
¦ Multi-units (detached)
0.40-0.60
¦ Multi-units (attached)
0.60-0.75
Residential (suburban)
0.25-0.40
Apartment dwelling areas
0.50-0.70
Industrial
¦ Light areas
0.50-0.80
¦ Heavy areas
0.60-0.90
Parks and cemeteries
0.10-0.25
Playgrounds
0.20-0.35
Railroad yard areas
0.20-0.40
Unimproved areas
0.10-0.30
Streets
¦ Asphalt
0.70-0.95
¦ Concrete
0.80-0.95
¦ Brick
0.70-0.85
Drives and walks
0.75-0.85
Roofs
0.75-0.95
Lawns—course textured soil (greater than 85 percent sand)
Slope: Flat (2 percent)
0.05-0.10
Average (2-7 percent)
0.10-0.15
Steep (7 percent)
0.15-0.20
Lawns—fine textured soil (greater than 40 percent clay)
Slope: Flat (2 percent)
0.13-0.17
Average (2-7 percent)
0.18-0.22
Steep (7 percent)
0.25-0.35
Source: Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers, with permission from the publisher,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Manual of Practice, page 37, New York, 1960.
Appendix U - Page 679
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix V -
Rain Zones of the United States
Appendix V - Page A-680
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Figure U-1
Rain Zones of the United States
Pas
°0 ° 0 ° n O
o O O o ° o
o o
°°° o ° Oo ~ Oq
O „Qn . ^
:! ^ ^ i | V \ t%A,
fs rv O q O ° On ^ q
° ° O O ° O ° G % Oo
O Q ° ° O r> °
o° ° O 00°»0^
o ^ o o o oo o ^
5V- o ° ° 0 o o ^^00°0
west O O 0 / ° o ° ° O O°o°o s
O O O O _ ... °n ° .. \P
O CD o O o y
'Wist1
Texas
West Inland I '' \ ( J0 % 0 ' . t
1 South W* V|/^\}° ^ astGu|f
481B-14
Table U-1
Typical Values of Annual Storm Event Statistics for Rain Zones
independent Storm Event Statistics
Rain Zone
No. of
Avg
Storms
cov
Pre
Avq
Cl p
COV
On)
North East
70
0.13
346
0.1a
North East-Coastal
63
012
41.4
0.21
Midatlantic
82
0.13
39.5
0.18
Central
68
0,14
41,9
0.19
North Central
65
0.18
298
022
Southeast
66
0.15
49.0
0.20
East Gulf
68
0.17
53.7
0„33
East Texas
41
0.22
31,2
0.29
Wast Texas
30
027
17.3
0.33
Southwest
20
0.30
7.4
0.37
West Inland
14
0.38
4.9
0.43
Pacific South
19
0.36
10.2
0.42
Northwest Inland
31
0,23
11.6
0,29
Pacific Central
32
o.as
18.4
0.33
Pacific Northwest
71
0.15
56.7
G.19
Duration
Inter
sHy
Volume
DELTA
Avg
COV
Avg
COV
Avg
COV
Avg
COV
0**)
(iiVhr)
On)
m
11.3
0.81
0 06/
1 23
05
0.95
128
0.94
11.7
0.77
0.071
1.05
0.6
1.03
140
0.87
10.1
0.84
0.082
1 20
0.6
1.01
143
0.97
9.2
0.85
0,097
1.09
0.6
1.00
133
0.99
9.5
0.83
0.067
1.20
0.5
1.01
167
1.17
8.7
0.92
0.122
1-09
0.?
1.10
136
1.03
8.4
1-05
0.176
1.03
0.8
1.19
130
1.25
8,0
0.97
0.137
1.08
0.7
1,18
213
1.26
7.4
0.98
0121
1.13
0.5
107
302
1 53
7.6
Q.SS
0.079
1.16
0.3
0.88
473
1.46
9.4
0,75
0.055
1.06
0.3
0,87
788
1.54
11 ©
0.7©
0.054
0.76
0.5
0 96
476
2.09
10.4
0.82
0.067
1.20
0.3
0.83
304
1.43
}3 7
o.so
0.048
0.85
0.5
1.05
265
2.00
15.9
0.80
0.035
0.73
0.5
1.09
123
1.50
GOV - Coefficient of Variation - Standard Deviation / Mean DELTA - Interval between nSorm midpoints
Appendix V - Page 681
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix W -
NOAA Rainfall Worksheet
Appendix W - Page 682
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
04/05/2013
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
Record of Climatological Observations
These delta are quality controlled and may not be
identical to the original observations.
National Climatic Data Center
Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
www.ncdc .noaa .gov
Station: NATIONAL ARBORETUM DC, DC US
Observation Time Temperature: 0700 Observation Time Precipitation: 0700
GHCND:USC00186350
Lat: 38.913° N Lon: 76.970° W
p
r
i
i
i
n
r
y
Y
e
a
r
M
0
n
t
h
D
a
y
Temperature (°F)
Precipitation(see **)
Evaporation
Soil Temperature (PF)
24 hrs. ending
at observation
time
at
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
0
n
24 Hour Amounts ending
at observation time
AtObs
Time
24 Hour
Wind
Movement
(mi)
Amount
of Evap.
(in)
4 in depth
8 in depth
Max.
Min.
Rain,
melted
snow, etc.
(in)
F
1
a
g
Snow, ice
pellets,
hail
(in)
F
1
a
g
Snow, ice
pellets,
hail, ice on
ground
(in)
Ground
Cover
(see *)
Max.
Min.
Ground
Cover
(see *)
Max.
Min.
2013
2
1
48
28
29
0.01
0.4
T
2013
2
2
30
17
22
0.00
2013
2
3
32
22
27
0.02
0.4
T
2013
2
4
35
24
27
T
T
0
2013
2
5
36
27
34
0.00
2013
2
6
42
27
32
0.00
2013
2
7
48
27
30
0.00
2013
2
8
41
30
37
0.19
0.0
0
2013
2
9
43
30
31
0.00
2013
2
10
43
21
26
0.00
2013
2
11
46
26
39
0.30
2013
2
12
54
38
45
T
2013
2
13
58
32
37
0.00
2013
2
14
48
32
37
0,23
T
0
2013
2
15
51
33
39
0.00
2013
2
16
60
35
37
0.13
0.0
0
2013
2
17
40
27
28
0,00
0.0
0
2013
2
18
34
22
32
0.00
2013
2
19
42
32
41
0.00
2013
2
20
46
32
33
0.06
2013
2
21
46
25
28
0.00
2013
2
22
41
28
32
0.00
2013
2
23
35
32
35
0,08
2013
2
24
47
35
44
0.00
2013
2
25
58
28
37
0.00
2013
2
26
49
29
33
0,00
2013
2
27
41
33
41
0.64
2013
2
28
56
41
41
0.02
Summary
44.6
29.0
1,68
0.8
The flags in Preliminary indicate the data have not completed processing and quaiitycontroi and may not be identical to the original observation
Empty, or blank, cells indicate that a data observation was not reported.
"Ground Cover: 1=Grass; 2=Failow; 3=Bare Ground; 4=Brome grass; 5=Sod; 6=Straw mulch; 7=Grass muck; 8=Bare muck; 0=Unknown
"T" values in the Precipitation category above indicate a TRACE value was recorded.
"A" values in the Precipitation Flag or the Snow Ftag column indicate a muitiday total, accumulated since last measurement, is being used.
Data value inconsistency may be present due to rounding calculations during the conversion process from SI metric units to standard imperial units.
Appendix W - Page 683
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix X-
NPDES Industrial Storm Water Investigation and
Case Development (Construction)
Appendix X - Page 684
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Background Information (complete infield)
National Database Information
General
Inspection Type
W
Inspector
Name
NPDES ID
Number
Telephone
Inspection Date
Entry
Time
Inspector Type
(circle one)
EPA State EPA
Oversight
Exit Time
Facility Type
(circle one)
Commercial/Industrial Residential Municipal
Signature
Facility Location Information
Name/Location/
Mailing Address
GPS Coordinates
Latitude
Longitude
Receiving Water(s)
Disturbed Area
Start Date
Stop Date
Contact Information
Name(s)
Telephone
Name(s) and Title(s)/ Role(s) of
All Parties Meeting the
Definition of Operator
Facility Contact
Authorized Official(s)
Site Information: (circle all that aoolv)
Nature of
Project
Residential
Commercial/
Industrial
Roadway
Private
Federal
State/
Municipal
Other
Construction
Stage
Clearing/
Grubbing
Rough
Grading
Infrastructure
Building
Construction
Final
Grading
Final
Stabilization
Appendix X - Page 685
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Basic Permit Information
Basic SWPPP Information
Permit Coverage?
Y
N
SWPPP on-site
Y
N
Permit Type
General
Individual
SWPPP Satisfactory*
Y
N
NOI visibly posted at
entrance?
Y
N
SWPPP Implementation
Satisfactory
Y
Y
Construction sign visibly
posted at entrance?
Y
N
*A Satisfactory SWPPP must be both current
and complete (see pages 3-6 of this checklist).
Are instructions posted for
obtaining the SWPPP and
contacting permit authority if
indicators of pollution are
observed? ( CGP section 1.5)
Y
N
Copy of permit on-site?
Y
N
NOI Date
SWPPP Review (can be completed in office)
General
Notes:
Is there a SWPPP?
Y
N
Is a copy of the SWPPP on-site?
Y
N
Was the SWPPP designed
specifically for the construction
site?
Y
N
Did all "operators" sign the
SWPPP?
Y
N
Did the signatures include the
certification statement?
Y
N
Were the signatories authorized
to sign?
Y
N
Have modifications been made to
the SWPPP?
Y
N
Are the dates of all SWPPP
modifications maintained within
the SWPPP?
Y
N
Appendix X - Page 686
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Do the records of modifications
Y
N
include the name of the person
authorizing each change and a
brief summary of all changes?
Site Descriotion
Notes:
Is there a site description?
Y
N
Nature/sequence of construction
activity?
Y
N
Total area of site and total area
to be disturbed?
Y
N
Pre/post runoff coefficient/soils
description?
Y
N
Operator evaluation of
Endangered Species Act
requirements?
Y
N
Name of receiving water(s) or
MS4 listed?
Y
N
Is the receiving water a tributary
to waters of the U.S? (if "yes"
indicate name of tributary)
Y
N
Is there a site map?
Y
N
Drainage patterns/outfalls on
map?
Y
N
Area of soil disturbance on map?
Y
N
Location of major structural
controls on map?
Y
N
Location of storm water
discharges to a surface water on
map?
Y
N
Location of materials or
equipment storage on map (on-
Y
N
Appendix X - Page 687
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SWPPP Review (continued)
Controls to Reduce Pollutants
Notes:
Does the SWPPP include a description of
interim and permanent stabilization
practices (e.g., seeding, mulching, riprap
for the site)?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP identify the
contractor(s) and timing by which
stabilization practices will be
implemented?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP include a description of
structural practices (e.g., off-site vehicle
tracking, silt fences, sediment traps,
storm drain inlet protection) for the
site?
Y
N
Where the structural practice is a
sediment basin that drains over 10
acres, is it adequately designed?
(3,600 cu. ft./acre x total drainage acres)
Y
N
Does the SWPPP identify the
contractor(s) who will implement the
structural practices?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP identify storm water
management measures to address
storm water runoff once the
construction is completed (e.g.,
retention ponds, velocity dissipation
controls)?
Y
N
Does the SWPPP describe maintenance
procedures for these controls?
Y
N
If treatment chemicals (polymers,
flocculants, etc.) are used, are they
being applied properly?
Y
N
If cationic treatment chemicals are
authorized, does the SWPPP contain
required description of controls and
implementation procedures, etc.?
Y
N
Appendix X - Page 688
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Insoections
Notes:
Does the SWPPP describe inspection
procedures?
Y
N
Is the inspection schedule at least once
every seven (7) calendar days; or once
every fourteen (14) calendar days and
within twenty-four (24) hours of the
occurrence of a storm event of 0.25
inches or greater?
Y
N
Does the Permittee determine if a storm
event of 0.25 inches or greater has
occurred on-site? How?
Y
N
Does the Permittee complete an
inspection report within 24 hours of
completing any site inspection?
Y
N
Does the Permittee keep a current copy
of all inspection reports at the site or at
an easily accessible location?
Y
N
Do the inspection reports contain the
inspection date?
Y
N
Do the inspection reports contain a
summary of inspection findings?
Y
N
Do the inspection reports contain names
and titles of personnel making the
inspections?
Y
N
Are the inspection reports signed and
certified by an authorized person?
Y
N
Corrective Actions
Notes:
Does the Permittee complete a
corrective action report for each
corrective action taken?
Y
N
Do the corrective action reports state
follow-up actions taken
Y
N
Appendix X - Page 689
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Corrective Actions
Notes:
Do the corrective action reports state a
summary of modifications to
stormwater controls?
Y
N
Do the corrective action reports note
whether SWPPP modifications are
required as a result of the corrective
action?
Y
N
Does the Permittee keep a current copy
of all corrective action reports at the site
or at an easily accessible location?
Y
N
SWPPP Implementation (complete in field)
General
Site Description
(include description of areas exposed to rainfall/runoff drainage patterns &
direction of flow)
Stabilization Practices
Any unprotected/
(indicate "yes" or "no"; if "yes", how long without such?)
exposed
slopes/areas
without vegetation,
mulch or matting
for more than 14
days after
construction
Appendix X - Page 690
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Stabilization Practices
List stabilization
(e.g., seeding, mulching, geotextiles, sod stabilization)
practices employed
at site.
Stabilization
(indicate "yes" or "no"; explain if necessary)
practices
properly applied in
a timely manner
and adequately
maintained?
List structural
(provide a brief description for each)
controls employed
at the site, (e.g., silt
fences, hay bales,
storm drain inlet
protection,
sedimentation
pond, rip rap, check
dam, diversion
structure)
Appendix X - Page 691
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Stabilization Practices
Discuss how the
(i.e., silt fence installed in a live stream)
structural controls
are, or are not,
appropriate for the
site.
Are structural
(indicate "yes" or "no"; explain if necessary)
controls installed
according to good
engineering
practices?
Are structural
(indicate "yes" or "no"; explain if necessary)
controls properly
maintained? (i.e.,
are inlet protection
measures replaced
when clogged)
Appendix X - Page 692
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Stabilization Practices
Are structural
(indicate "yes" or "no"; explain if necessary)
controls
implemented
according to the
SWPPP?
Appendix X - Page 693
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SWPPP Implementation (continued)
Non-Structural Controls
Good
Housekeeping
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; ifN/A, so
state)
Vegetative
Buffer
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; ifN/A, so
state)
Materials &
Chemical
Storage
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; ifN/A, so
state)
Equipment
Wash/
Maintenance
Area
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; ifN/A, so
state)
Concrete
Washout
Areas
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; ifN/A, so
state)
Appendix X - Page 694
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SWPPP Implementation (continued)
Other Controls
Street
Cleaning
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; ifN/A, so
state)
Off-site
Vehicle
Tracking
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; if N/A, so
state)
Spill Cleanup
(indicate whether all spills are cleaned up immediately)
Storm Water
Outfalls
(indicate whether outfalls identified correspond with the site map)
Appendix X - Page 695
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Other Controls
Waste
Disposal
Practices
(provide brief description and whether appropriate /properly maintained; if N/A, so
state)
Miscellaneous
Evidence of
sediment or
other
pollutants in
the
discharge?
Evidence of
Sediment
Deposition to
Surface
Waters
(pro vide brief descrip tion)
Does the
SWPPP
reflect
current site
conditions?
(indicate "yes" or "no"; explain if necessary)
Appendix X - Page 696
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Photograph Log
1.
2.
3.
Appendix X - Page 697
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix Y-
Construction Source Control BMP Questions
Appendix Y - Page 698
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CONSTRUCTION SOURCE CONTROL BMP QUESTIONS
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES
MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBED SOIL
1. Does the site plan require a significant amount of grade changes?
2. Are there portions of the site that do not have to be cleared for construction to proceed?
3. Can construction be performed in stages, so that the entire site does not have to be
cleared at one time?
4. Are there portions of the site that will be disturbed then left alone for long periods of
time?
5. Does the facility stabilize all disturbed areas after construction is complete?
6. Does snow prevent the facility from seeding an area?
7. Is there enough rainfall to allow vegetation to grow?
PREVENT RUNON FROM FLOWING ACROSS DISTURBED AREAS
1. Does runoff from the undisturbed uphill areas flow onto the construction site?
2. Will runoff flow down a steeply sloped, disturbed area on the site?
3. Is there a swale or stream that runs through the construction site?
4. Does construction traffic have to cross drainage swales or streams?
SLOW DOWN THE RUNOFF TRAVELING ACROSS THE SITE
1. Is the site gently sloped?
2. Is the site stabilized with vegetation?
3. Does runoff concentrate into drainage swales on the site?
REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM ONSITE RUNOFF BEFORE IT LEAVES THE SITE
1. Does the construction disturb an area 10 acres or larger that drains to a common
location?
2. Is a sediment basin attainable on the site?
3. Does runoff leave the disturbed area as overland flow?
4. Is the flow concentrated in channels as it leaves the disturbed areas?
5. Are structural controls located along the entire downhill perimeter of all disturbed areas?
6. Is there a piped storm drain system with inlets in a disturbed area?
7. If treatment chemicals are authorized, which are used and how are they being applied and
stored?
MEET OR EXCEED LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
1. Does the State or local government require erosion and sediment control for construction
projects?
2. Does the State or local government have an erosion and sediment control requirement
that is different from the requirements of the NPDES storm water permit?
Appendix Y - Page 699
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
OTHER CONTROLS
GOOD HOUSEKEEPING
1. Does the facility appear to implement good housekeeping practices?
WASTE DISPOSAL
1. What steps are taken to ensure that construction waste is properly disposed of?
2. Are provided waste containers sufficient in size and quantity for the amount of waste
generated on-site?
3. What management practices are used to minimize or prevent impacts on storm water
from hazardous products on the construction site?
4. Are concrete trucks allowed to washout or dump onsite?
5. Is sandblasting performed at the site? If so, what is done with the used grit?
MINIMIZING OFFSITE VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS
1. What measures have been taken to prevent offsite vehicle tracking?
SANITARY/SEPTIC DISPOSAL
1. How are sanitary or septic wastes managed?
2. How does the facility demonstrate compliance with State or local sanitary or septic
system regulations?
MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
1. What types of materials are found on the construction site?
2. How are these materials managed?
3. What risks are present onsite as a result of material management practices?
4. Is the facility implementing any methods to reduce potential risks from material
management?
5. If applicable, how are pesticides managed at the site?
6. If applicable, how are petroleum products managed at the site?
7. If applicable, what steps are taken to reduce nutrient pollution from fertilizers and
detergents?
SPILLS
1. Does the facility have a spill control plan for the site?
2. Does the facility know what spill prevention methods and responses will be used?
CONTROL OF ALLOWABLE NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES
1. What non-storm water discharges are present at the site?
2. How does the facility manage the non-storm water discharges?
3. How are allowable non-storm water discharges addressed in the storm water Pollution
Prevention Plan?
Appendix Y - Page 700
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
4. What types of controls or practices are used to prevent pollution from non-storm water
discharges?
5. What types of controls are used for discharges that have sediments?
Appendix Y - Page 701
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix Z -
Infiltration Control Inspection Form
Appendix Z - Page 702
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Infiltration Control Inspection Form
Name(s) of inspectors:
Date and time of inspection:
Weather at time of inspection:
Facility name:
Facility Owner:
Address or intersection of facility:
Location of infiltration control:
Dimensions (I xw in ft) or area (ft2)
of infiltration control:
Approximate total drainage area to
infiltration control (ft2):
Time since last rainfall (hr.):
Quantity of last rainfall (in):
Answer the following questions by visually observing the control. Take photos and mark observations
on-site sketch. NA=not applicable. NE=not evaluated.
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Site overview
Are there indications of any of the following?
Erosion
Bed Sinking
Rodent holes or water piping
Trash and debris
Leaf accumulation
Excess sediment build-up
Control is poorly designed or poorly graded
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Is there ponded water in the control?
~
~
~
~
Inlets and outlets
How manv inlets are present?
How manv outlets are present?
Are inlets set at an elevation that allows stormwater to
flow into the control?
~
~
~
~
Are outlets set at an elevation that allows stormwater to
pond temporarily in the control and not discharge
immediately?
~
~
~
~
Are any of the inlet/outlets cracked or eroded?
~
~
~
~
Are the inlet/outlets clear of sediment and debris and is
water able to flow freely?
~
~
~
~
Are the overflow and/or bypass structures clear of
overgrown vegetation, excess sediment and debris?
~
~
~
~
Are the pretreatment devices functioning as designed?
~
~
~
~
Appendix Z - Page 703
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Infiltration Control Inspection Form
Vegetation
Are there indications of any of the following?
Dead plants
Diseased plants
Weeds
Overgrown vegetation
Is grass maintained at a height of 3-6 inches?
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
If a planting plan is available, are the plants as specified
in the plan?
~
~
~
~
Mulch
Are there any bare spots that are without mulch cover or
locations with mulch depth less than 2 inches?
~
~
~
~
Does mulch appear to need to be replaced?
~
~
~
~
Does the bed appear to be over mulched?
~
~
~
~
Nutrients and pesticides
Is there evidence of excess nutrients (e.g., algal mat) at
or near the control?
~
~
~
~
Is there evidence of excess pesticides (e.g., leaf
scorching) applied?
~
~
~
~
Miscellaneous
Date of last maintenance activity?
Is the facility covered by a maintenance plan?
~
~
~
~
Are maintenance records maintained on this control?
~
~
~
~
Describe maintenance records.
How often is the control inspected?
If an as-built plan is available, does the control match
the as-built specifications (dimensions of control,
inlet/outlet height, etc.)?
~
~
~
~
If an underdrain is installed, is there evidence of clogging
or poor installation?
~
~
~
~
Additional Comments
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Guidance for Inspecting and Maintaining Green Infrastructure
Practices. 2014 Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, City and County of Denver and Denver Urban Flood Control District,
Denver, CO.
State of Washington Department of Ecology. Example Permeable Pavements Inspection Form. Herrera Environmental Consultants.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/Resources/PermeablePavementlnspectionForm.pdf
Appendix Z - Page 704
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AA -
Permeable Pavements Inspection Form
Appendix AA - Page 705
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Permeable Pavements Inspection Form
Name(s) of inspectors:
Date and time of inspection:
Weather at time of inspection:
Facility name:
Facility owner:
Address or intersection of facility:
Location of permeable pavement:
Age of permeable pavement:
Either permeable pavement
dimensions (I x w in ft.) or area (ft2):
Approximate total drainage area to
permeable pavement (ft2):
Time since last rainfall (hr.):
Quantity of last rainfall (in):
Type of permeable pavement ~ Pervious Concrete ~ Interlocking Concrete
~ Porous Asphalt Pavers
~ Grid Pavers ~ Other:
Answer the following questions by visually observing the control. Take photos and mark observations
on-site sketch. NA=not applicable. NE=not evaluated.
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Surface course
Is there any evidence of excessive sediment on the
surface of the permeable pavement?
~
~
~
~
Are there indications of any of the following on the
surface of the permeable pavement?
Moss growth
Cracks, tripping hazards, or concrete raveling
Debris (trash, leaves, grass clippings, etc.)
Surface settlement or depressions
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Is there any evidence of any spills that have occurred on
the permeable pavement? Describe
~
~
~
~
If records are available, have they documented any past
spills on the permeable pavement? Describe.
~
~
~
~
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Is there ponded water on the surface of the permeable
pavement?
If yes, describe the potential reasons for the ponded
water (e.g. debris buildup, illicit connection, improperly
graded/overloading of one section of the practice
~
~
~
~
Appendix AA - Page 706
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Permeable Pavements Inspection Form
Vegetation
Are there indications of any of the following around the
perimeter of the permeable pavement?
Dead vegetation
Diseased vegetation
Overgrown vegetation
Is grass maintained at a height of 3-6 inches?
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Maintenance
Date of last maintenance activity?
Is the facility covered by a maintenance plan?
~
~
~
~
Are maintenance records maintained on this control?
~
~
~
~
Describe maintenance records.
How often is the control inspected?
Additional Comments
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Guidance for Inspecting and Maintaining Green Infrastructure Practices.
2014 Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, City and County of Denver and Denver Urban Flood Control District, Denver, CO.
State of Washington Department of Ecology. Example Bioretention Inspection Form. Herrera Environmental Consultants.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/Resources/BioretentionlnspectionForm.pdf
Appendix AA - Page 707
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AB -
Rainwater Harvest Inspection Form
Appendix AB - Page 708
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Rainwater Harvesting Inspection Form
Name(s) of inspectors:
Date and time of inspection:
Weather at time of inspection:
Facility name:
Facility Owner:
Address or intersection of system:
Estimated storage volume (gal):
Estimated surface area that contributes flow
to harvesting system (ft2)
What is the harvested rainwater used for?
Time since last rainfall (hr.):
Quantity of last rainfall (in):
~ Irrigation only
~ Graywater and/or irrigation
~ Potable and/or irrigation
~ Other:
Answer the following questions by visually observing the control. Take photos and mark observations
on-site sketch. NA=not applicable. NE=not evaluated.
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Tank and System condition
Is the tank cracked, leaking, or need repairs?
Is there evidence of sediment buildup in the tank?
Are the pump and electrical system functioning
properly?
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Inflow and Storage
Are there leaves or other debris in the gutters or pipes?
~
~
~
~
Is there debris or pollutants in the prescreening devices
or first flush diverters?
~
~
~
~
Are mosquito screens missing or damaged?
~
~
~
~
Is there an odor in the water?
~
~
~
~
Are any of the valves/hoses clogged?
~
~
~
~
How full is the tank?
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Other:
~
~
~
~
Overflow
Is the overflow device in need of repair?
Is there evidence of erosion at the outlet?
Is there evidence of debris or sediment in the overflow?
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Appendix AB - Page 709
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Rainwater Harvesting Inspection Form
Use of Harvested Rainwater
How is the harvested rainwater used?
How often is the harvested rainwater used?
What is the estimated available current storage capacity
(% of system that is currently empty)?
Maintenance
Date of last maintenance activity?
Is the rainwater harvesting system covered by a
maintenance plan?
~
~
~
~
Are maintenance records maintained on this control?
~
~
~
~
Describe maintenance records.
How often is the rainwater harvesting system inspected?
Additional Comments
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Guidance for Inspecting and Maintaining Green Infrastructure Practices.
2014 Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, City and County of Denver and Denver Urban Flood Control District, Denver, CO.
State of Washington Department of Ecology. Example Permeable Pavements Inspection Form. Herrera Environmental Consultants.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/Resources/PermeablePavementlnspectionForm.pdf
Appendix AB - Page 710
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AC -
Green Roof Inspection Form
Appendix AC - Page 711
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Green Roof Inspection Form
Name(s) of inspectors:
Date and time of inspection:
Weather at time of inspection:
Facility name:
Facility Owner:
Address or intersection of green roof:
Dimensions (1 xw in ft) or area (ft2)
of green roof:
Is the roof extensive (<6-inch media)
or intensive (>6-inch media)?
Time since last rainfall (hr.):
Quantity of last rainfall (in):
Answer the following questions by visually observing the control. Take photos and mark observations
on-site sketch. NA=not applicable. NE=not evaluated.
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Roof condition
Are overflow drains, drain boxes, eves, and scuppers
blocked, damaged or have accumulated organic matter
deposits?
Is there evidence of any leaks or cracks in the
membrane?
Is the flashing or caulking in need of repair?
Is there standing water on the roof (at least 24 hours
after a rain event)?
Is there debris or sediment accumulation on the roof?
Is there evidence of root penetration (e.g., water
damage on the inside of the roof)?
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Vegetated Areas
Are there dead or diseased plants?
~
~
~
~
Are there weeds, unwanted moss, invasive plants, or
pests?
~
~
~
~
Is there erosion or loss of media on the roof?
~
~
~
~
Question
Yes
No
NA
NE
Notes
Other:
~
~
~
~
Miscellaneous
Date of last maintenance activity?
Is the green roof covered by a maintenance plan?
~
~
~
~
Are maintenance records maintained on this control?
~
~
~
~
Describe maintenance records.
How often is the green roof inspected?
Appendix AC - Page 712
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Green Roof Inspection Form
Additional Comments
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Guidance for Inspecting and Maintaining Green Infrastructure Practices.
2014 Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, City and County of Denver and Denver Urban Flood Control District, Denver, CO.
State of Washington Department of Ecology. Example Permeable Pavements Inspection Form. Herrera Environmental Consultants.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/Resources/PermeablePavementlnspectionForm.pdf
Appendix AC - Page 713
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AD -
Animal Industry Overview
Appendix AD - Page 714
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRY PRACTICES
A. Overview of Livestock Agriculture
The poultry, swine, dairy, and beef industries constitute the principal sectors of U.S. animal
agriculture. The vast majority of AFOs that are by definition CAFOs and subject to NPDES permit
requirements are in one of these four sectors. A limited number of veal calf, sheep, duck, and
horse AFOs are also CAFOs subject to NPDES permit requirements. In this section, we will
provide a general overview of the principal sectors, including descriptions of production and
waste management practices, with the objective of providing the CAFO inspector with a general
understanding of the nature of each of these industries. The production and waste
management practices described in this section are those most likely to be encountered at
large CAFOs. It is not intended to describe all the possible practices and combinations of
practices that may be encountered, since that number is sizable. Thus, CAFO inspectors must
expect to encounter operations and practices that are atypical and should seek additional
guidance when necessary. The CAFO inspector should feel comfortable asking an operator to
clarify or describe an operation, practice, or piece of equipment.
A.1.0 Poultry
The poultry sector has three principal segments: broilers, laying hens, and turkeys. In each of
these segments, production and waste management practices are probably more uniform than
in the swine, dairy, and beef industries.
A.l.l Broilers
Broiler refers to a meat-type chicken typically slaughtered at about 7 weeks of age at a live
weight of about 5 pounds. This size of bird is the principal product of the broiler sector within
the poultry industry. However, there is also some production of younger birds, identified as
squab broilers, Cornish game hens or Rock-Cornish crosses, as well as older birds known as
roasters. Squab broilers are typically slaughtered at about 4 weeks of age at a live weight of
about 2.25 to 2.5 pounds. Roasters are generally slaughtered at about 8 to 10 weeks of age at a
live weight of 6 to 8 pounds. Typically, 5 to 6 flocks of broiler chickens will be produced
annually. Because squab broilers and roaster boilers differ in the length of their grow-out cycle
(the time to reach slaughter weight), more flocks of squab broilers and fewer flocks of roasters
are produced annually. Broilers are typically fed corn-soybean-based diets, which may also
include various cereal grains and a variety of other ingredients. Grain sorghum may be
substituted for corn.
Broiler-type chicken production tends to be vertically integrated with contracts between
grower and integrator. The integrator supplies the birds, the feed, and any pharmaceuticals
required. The grower supplies the production facility and labor. With vertical integration, the
integrator retains ownership of the live birds, but disposal of the manure and dead birds
generated is the responsibility of the grower.
Appendix AD - Page 715
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.1.1.1 Broiler Confinement Facilities
Broiler chicken production typically occurs in either totally or partially enclosed structures.
Partially enclosed structures have partially open side walls that can be covered by curtains
during periods of cold weather. A combination of natural and mechanical ventilation removes
heat and moisture from partially enclosed structures. Mechanical ventilation is used with totally
enclosed structures, known as controlled environment housing, or, more commonly, tunnel-
type housing.
Broiler houses are normally divided into three chambers. One chamber, referred to as the
brood chamber, is used to house day-old chicks (biddies). Until the age of about 2 to 3 weeks,
chickens are unable to maintain a constant body temperature and require supplemental heat.
Thus, brood chambers are heated at the beginning of the grow-out cycle. As the birds grow and
heating requirements are reduced, the second and third chambers are opened sequentially to
provide more floor space per bird. In cold weather, broiler houses are heated throughout the
grow-out cycle to maximize feed conversion efficiency and the rate of weight gain.
A.l.1.2 Broiler Manure Management
All broiler-type chickens are raised unconfined within the production facility on litter, which has
the primary function of absorbing the moisture in the excreted manure. Litter materials vary
depending on availability and cost, but they are usually sawdust, wood shavings, peanut hulls,
or rice hulls.
Normally, litter and accumulated manure, also commonly called litter, are only removed from
the entire house every 1 to 3 years after 5 to 15 or more flocks of birds have been produced.
The industry refers to this as a total clean-out. When total clean-outs do not occur on a yearly
basis, litter and accumulated manure may be removed annually from the brood chamber. This
is known as a brood chamber clean-out. Following both total and brood chamber clean-outs,
the litter is replaced.
During each production or grow-out cycle, a material known as crust or cake will form along
feeder and water lines. In these areas, the amount of manure excreted is higher than in other
areas of the house, and moisture from the manure and waterers tends to bind the mixture of
litter and manure together, forming large clumps. As watering systems have improved, the
amount of crust formed during each grow-out cycle has decreased. Crust is usually removed
after every flock of birds produced. The remaining litter and accumulated manure may be
covered (top dressed) with a relatively thin layer of new litter if the amount of crust removed is
high. Some poultry operations may use in-house windrowing to treat the cake following each
flock, and these poultry operations may only remove cake after several flocks.
Historically, total and brood chamber clean-out litter and crust have been either applied to crop
land immediately, if crop production activities permitted, or stored in uncovered piles until land
was available for disposal. Over the last several years, structures have occasionally been used to
store crust. However, construction cost has generally precluded the use of such storage
structures for litter generated by total and brood chamber cleanouts some producers use. The
timing of these clean-outs has shifted somewhat from late fall and early winter, as the industry
Appendix AD - Page 716
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
has become more sensitive to the impact on water quality of litter stored in uncovered piles. It
is generally acceptable for litter to be stored under a tarp as long as rain and runoff is diverted
around the pile in lieu of constructing covered storage facilities. Temporary short-term stacking
of litter (i.e., 2 weeks) on or near a field where it will be applied may also be an acceptable
handling method provided manure is applied in a timely manner. For example, Maryland
Agriculture Extension allows litter stacked at the field for no longer than two weeks.
manure
spreader
Litter System for Broilers and Turkeys (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook)
A.l.1.3 Broiler Mortality Management
With broilers, the highest rate of mortality normally occurs during the first 2 weeks of the grow-
out cycle, but continues at a lesser rate throughout the rest of the cycle. Typically, about 4.5 to
5 percent of the birds housed will die during the grow-out cycle although the typical mortality
for roasters is about 8 percent. To prevent the possible spread of disease, dead birds must be
removed at least daily, if not more frequently. As mentioned earlier, the disposal of dead birds
is the responsibility of the grower. Several options are available for dead bird disposal.
Composting is one of the more desirable approaches and has been heavily promoted by the
industry. As an alternative to composting or burial, at least one integrator has been distributing
freezers to preserve carcasses for subsequent disposal by rendering.
Catastrophic losses of broiler chickens also occur, especially during periods of extremely hot
weather but also during weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and snow or ice storms.
Catastrophic losses of broilers from excessive heat are usually more severe with older birds.
Several options are available for disposal of catastrophic losses, with burial being the most
common practice. (Note that burial is prohibited or highly regulated in some states.) Large-scale
composting is another, and probably more desirable, option from a water quality perspective.
Appendix AD - Page 717
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.1.2 Laving Hens
A laying hen is a chicken maintained for table egg production. The production cycle begins with
the placement of young birds, normally 14 to 16 weeks of age, in the production facility and
ends 11 to 12 months later when the birds are removed. These birds, known as spent hens,
may be slaughtered for meat for human or pet foods or disposed of by rendering. More than
three-fourths of layer farms molt their birds followed by a second period of egg production.
Routine molting by withholding or restricting feed is the most common method. Placement and
removal of birds are on an "all in-all out" basis. Typically, laying hens are also fed corn- and
soybean-based diets, which may also include various cereal grains such as wheat and barley and
a variety of other ingredients.
Although the table egg segment of the poultry sector is less vertically integrated than the
broiler sector, vertical integration is becoming more common. However, the egg producer is
typically responsible for both manure and dead bird disposal if under contract with an
integrator or an independent operator. Slightly more than 10 percent of all layer farms have
pullet raising facilities on the farm. Pullets are young chickens, usually less than 20 weeks of
age, often raised for the purpose of egg production. Traditional pullet houses are similar in
construction to broiler houses.
I Bird cages
Solid manure
Solid
. - manure
^ spreader
Traditional "High-Rise" House for Layers (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook)
A.l.2.1 Laying Hens Confinement Facilities
Appendix AD - Page 718
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Most egg production occurs in totally enclosed facilities with mechanical ventilation for
temperature control and moisture removal, but partially open-sided houses may be
encountered in warm climates. Unlike broilers, laying hens are usually confined in cages and no
litter or bedding material is used. However, modern changes in the layer industry are resulting
in more diverse housing arrangements, including larger cages, designs with "enriched housing"
where hens can freely move within a large cage from laying areas to perches to scratching
areas, and designs that allow hens to fly between the floor of the barn to multiple levels in the
building for perching and laying.
A.l.2.2 Laying Hens Manure Management
Manure produced by laying hens is handled both as a liquid or slurry and as a solid, with
handling as a solid being much more common. Liquid or slurry systems are more common in
older production facilities. When laying hen manure is handled as a liquid or slurry, flushing or
scraping is used to remove manure from the production facility. With scraping systems, a tank
or an earthen structure is often used for storage if the manure is not applied directly to crop
land, while flush systems use an anaerobic lagoon for stabilization and storage. Typically, the
lagoon is the source of the water used for flushing, although fresh water may be used in rare
instances.
Traditionally, to handle laying hen manure as a solid, a two-story production facility, known as a
high-rise house, is used. In a high-rise house, the caged hens are located on the second floor of
the building, with the manure dropping to the first floor where it is dried and stored. The
primary factor responsible for drying is biological heat production in the accumulating mass of
manure that causes evaporation of the moisture in the manure. Ventilation systems for high-
rise houses are designed to move air from intakes along the eaves of the house roof down
through the caged hens and over the mass of accumulating manure before exiting the house,
thus removing the moisture evaporated from the manure. Critical to the successful operation of
a high-rise house is the avoidance of leaks in the bird watering system and proper exterior
grading to direct surface runoff away from the building. Because of the microbial activity in the
accumulating mass of manure, which is responsible for the heat generated and the evaporation
of manure moisture, stabilization occurs and storage for 1 or more years is provided. Typically,
manure is removed from high-rise houses yearly between flocks of hens, but storage for 2 to 3
years is possible.
Modern housing for laying hens, and the type that is currently most often built, is a "manure-
belt" system where the manure from caged hens drops onto conveyor belts that move through
the house and transport the manure into a separate drying unit or storage structure. The
manure may be dried for easier storage or transportation. This housing design and manure
management system is beneficial for the health of the birds, as the air quality is improved by
the removal of the litter.
The majority of eggs marketed commercially in the U.S. are washed using automatic washers.
Cleaning compounds such as sodium carbonate, sodium metasilicate, ortrisodium phosphate,
together with small amounts of other additives, are commonly used in these systems. Wash
water is contaminated with shell, egg solids, dirt, manure, and bacteria washed from the egg
Appendix AD - Page 719
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
surface into the recycled water. Eggs may be washed either on farm or off farm. Over three-
fourths of layer farms process eggs on farm, though one-third of the largest farms are likely to
wash eggs off farm. Operations that wash their eggs on farm may do so in-line or off-line.
Larger operations commonly collect and store egg wash water on-site in large tanks or lagoons
for treatment and storage.
A.l.2.3 Laying Hens Mortality Management
It can be expected that about 1 percent of the started pullets housed will die each month
through the laying cycle. To prevent the possible spread of disease, dead birds should be
removed from cages daily, if not more frequently. As mentioned earlier, disposal of dead birds
is the responsibility of the grower. Several options are available for dead bird disposal. Of these
options, composting is one of the more desirable approaches.
Catastrophic losses of laying hens also occur. Loss of power and mechanical ventilation during
periods of extremely hot weather is the most common cause of loss. Weather events such as
hurricanes and tornadoes can also cause catastrophic losses. Several options are available for
the disposal of catastrophic losses, with burial being the most common. (Note that burial is
prohibited or highly regulated in some states.) Large-scale composting is another, and probably
more desirable, option from a water quality perspective.
Appendix AD - Page 720
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
D: .*
cc * /
Dead
bird (db)
Concrete burial
incinerator tartij
Composter
Solids
¦IBs
Scrape s»:,il
pump or
LttjuiJ spreader
4
Solids spreaaei'
Wast
forage
structure
t
Roofed waste
stacking facility
Waste treatment lagoor
or waste storage pone
Poultry Waste Handling (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Note that burial is prohibited or highly
regulated in some states.)
A.1.3 Turkeys
Turkey production is similar to broiler chicken production in many respects. The grow-out
period for female or hen turkeys is usually about 14 to 16 weeks, resulting in a live weight at
slaughter of between 13 and 20 pounds. However, the usual grow-out period for toms or male
turkeys is longer, ranging from 17 to 21 weeks, resulting in a live weight at slaughter of
between 30 and 37 pounds. Typically, two flocks of turkeys are produced annually because of
the longer grow-out cycle and the somewhat seasonal demand for turkey. Turkeys are primarily
fed corn- and soybean-based diets, which may also include various cereal grains and a variety of
other ingredients.
Vertical integration is also extensive in the turkey sector of the poultry industry, with the same
distribution of responsibilities between the integrator and grower as in the broiler sector.
Appendix AD - Page 721
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.l.3.1 Turkey Confinement Facilities
Like broiler production, essentially all turkey production occurs in partially or totally enclosed
facilities that are divided into two or three chambers. Initially, only one chamber, also known as
the brood chamber, is used; this is the area where the newly hatched turkeys, known as poults
are placed. Like broiler chicks, poults are unable to maintain a constant body temperature until
about 6 to 8 weeks of age and thus require supplemental heat. Brood chambers for turkeys,
therefore, are also heated at the beginning of the grow-out cycle. As with broiler chickens, the
second or the second and third chambers are opened to provide more floor space per bird as
the birds grow. In cold weather, some heat may be provided throughout the grow-out cycle.
Some turkey producers use separate brood and growing houses and move the birds from the
brooding house to the growing house after about 6 to 8 weeks. Another production practice is
to use the brood chamber in a house exclusively for brooding and use the remainder of the
house for grow-out after the birds reach the age of 6 to 8 weeks. These management systems
are known as two-age management systems. Such systems produce more flocks each year than
single-age farms.
A.l.3.2 Turkey Manure Management
Turkeys are raised unconfined in the production facility on litter, typically sawdust or wood
shavings. Total clean-out of brood chambers and brood houses after each flock is common, as is
total clean-out of growing chambers or houses annually. Crust removal between flocks followed
by top dressing with new litter also occurs in the production of turkeys.
In the turkey sector, the use of litter sheds to store crust and total clean-outs from brood
chambers or brood houses is also emerging. When land is not available for disposal, storage of
these materials in uncovered piles is common.
A.l.3.3 Turkey Mortality Management
Typically, about 5 to 6 percent of hens and 9 to 12 percent of toms will die during the grow-out
cycle, with the highest rate of loss occurring during the initial weeks. As with broilers and laying
hens, dead birds should be removed daily, if not more frequently, with dead bird disposal being
the responsibility of the grower. Again, several options for dead bird disposal are available;
composting is one of the more desirable approaches from a water quality perspective.
Catastrophic losses of turkeys occur during periods of extremely hot weather, but they may also
be due to weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and snow or ice storms. Older turkeys,
like older broilers, are more susceptible to catastrophic losses during periods of extremely hot
weather. Several options are available for disposal of catastrophic losses, with burial being the
most common practice. (Note that burial is prohibited or highly regulated in some states.)
Large-scale composting is another, and probably more desirable, option from a water quality
perspective.
Appendix AD - Page 722
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.2.0 Swine
The production cycle for hogs has three phases. It begins with gestation and farrowing (birth).
After farrowing, the newly born pigs or piglets are normally nursed for a period of just under 3
to 4 weeks until they reach a weight of 10 to 15 pounds. The average pig weaning age is 17
days, but may approach 4 weeks at smaller operations. Over 97 percent of large farms wean at
less than 21 days. The production phase after weaning is known as the nursery phase where
pigs are fed a starter ration until they reach a weight of 40 to 60 pounds. At this point, they are
8 to 10 weeks of age. The average age for leaving the nursery is 63 days. The third phase of
swine production is the growing-finishing phase in which the gilts (young females) and young
castrated boars (males) not retained for breeding are fed until they reach a market weight,
typically between 240 and 280 pounds. In this phase of swine production, hogs are fed a
growing ration until they reach 120 pounds in weight, which is then followed by a finishing
ration. Growing-finishing usually takes between 15 and 18 weeks. Hogs are normally
slaughtered at about 26 weeks of age. After weaning, swine are typically fed a corn- and
soybean-meal based diet which may include small grains such as wheat and barley and other
ingredients until slaughtered.
bam
out storage
Sotkl floor bam
with paved feedtot
ink storage
Swine Waste Handling (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Note that burial is prohibited or highly
regulated in some states.)
Appendix AD - Page 723
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Swine operations can be of several types. The most common is the farrow-to-finish operation
that encompasses all three phases of swine production. Other operations specialize in either
feeder pig production or the growing-finishing phase of swine production. Although not
common, specialization in either the gestation-farrowing or the nursery phase of the swine
production cycle may also occur. Larger grow-finish operations are more likely to obtain feeder
pigs from off-site sources. Vertical integration is becoming more common in the swine industry.
A.2.1 Swine Confinement Facilities
The swine industry uses confinement systems ranging from pasture without and with shelters
to total confinement, where pigs are confined in pens or stalls. Open paved or unpaved lots
with access to a building or huts for shelter are also used, but larger operations will use total
confinement 99 percent of the time because of higher feed conversion efficiency and weight
gain as well as lower labor costs.
Total confinement facilities for swine are similar in many respects to facilities used for broiler
production, except that the pigs are confined in pens. These pens may be totally enclosed or
they may have partially open side walls that can be closed with curtains during cold weather.
Totally enclosed facilities are mechanically ventilated, whereas facilities with partially open side
walls use a combination of natural and mechanical ventilation.
A.2.2 Swine Manure Management
Four principal types of waste management systems are used with total confinement housing in
the swine industry: deep pit, pull plug pit, pit recharge, and flush systems. The deep pit, pull
plug pit, and pit recharge systems are used with slatted floors, whereas flush systems can be
used with either solid or slatted floors.
Deep pits are normally sized to collect and store 6 to 8 months of waste. When they are
emptied, the accumulated manure may be disposed of directly by land application or
transferred to either storage tanks or earthen storage ponds for later disposal by land
application.
Pull plug pit systems use relatively shallow pits to collect manure. These pits are usually drained
to a storage tank or an earthen storage pond every 1 to 2 weeks.
Pit recharge systems also use relatively shallow pits that are drained periodically to an
anaerobic lagoon. Although the frequency of draining varies, between 4 and 7 days is standard.
After the pit is drained, the empty pit is partially refilled with supernatant from the anaerobic
lagoon, which differentiates this system from the pull plug pit system—hence, the name pit
recharge.
Flush systems use either fresh water or, more commonly, supernatant from an anaerobic
lagoon to transport accumulated wastes to that lagoon daily or more frequently. Because pigs
will defecate as far away from their feeding and resting areas as possible, facilities with solid
floors will usually have a flush channel formed in that area. Facilities with slatted floors usually
form a series of parallel flush channels in the shallow pit under the slatted floor.
Appendix AD - Page 724
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.2.3 Swine Mortality Management
In swine production, the highest rate of mortality occurs in young piglets within 3 to 4 days of
birth. Typically, about 10 to 12 percent of piglets will die before weaning. Typically, 2 to 4
percent of the pigs die during the nursery stage and during the grow-finish stage. Several
approaches are used for dead pig disposal, with burial being the most common. Composting
and incineration are also used but primarily for piglets. Although older pigs can be disposed of
by composting, disposal through rendering is the more common alternative to burial.
Catastrophic losses of swine also occur but they are primarily due to extreme weather events
such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like. Heat losses are less common in the swine industry,
because pigs, unlike birds, possess sweat glands that help to regulate body temperature. The
primary effects of periods of high temperatures on swine production are reduced feed
conversion efficiency and a reduced rate of weight gain. Burial is a practical option for the
disposal of large numbers of swine carcasses, although rendering could be feasible as well.
(Note that burial is prohibited or highly regulated in some states.)
A.3.0 Dairy Cattle
The production cycle in the dairy industry begins with the birth of a calf, which causes the onset
of lactation or milk production. A period of between 10 and 12 months of milk production is
normally followed by a 2-month dry period to allow for physiological preparation for calving. At
the time that milking is normally stopped, a cow will be in the seventh month of a 9-month
pregnancy. Thus, a mature dairy cow produces a calf every 12 to 14 months. This frequency of
calf production is necessary to maintain a cost-effective level of milk production. Average U.S.
milk production is about 17,000 pounds per cow per year. However, herds with averages of
22,000 to 24,000 pounds of milk per cow per year or higher are not unusual.
Appendix AD - Page 725
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Waste storage
pond
Dairy Confinement Area (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook)
About 25 percent of a milking herd is typically replaced each year, but replacement levels can
be as high as 40 percent for intensively managed herds. Mature cows are replaced or culled for
a variety of reasons, including low milk production and diseases such as mastitis, which is an
infection of the udder. Lameness, injury, belligerence, and reproductive problems are also
reasons for culling. Nearly all culled dairy cows are slaughtered for beef used in processed foods
or in higher quality pet foods.
Roughly 50 percent of the calves produced by dairy cows are bulls unless the livestock producer
is using sexed semen (to produce more heifer calves). Because most dairy cows are bred using
artificial insemination, the industry has little demand for bull calves. Although some dairy farms
will have one or more breeding age bulls for cows that will not conceive by artificial
insemination, most bull calves are sold for either veal or beef production.
Because of the continuing need for replacement cows, approximately 50 percent of the female
calves born are raised as replacements. Those animals selected as replacements are usually
progeny of cows with a record of high milk production. Female calves not raised as
replacements are also sold for either veal or beef production.
Female calves retained as replacements are either raised on-site or transferred off-site to an
operation that specializes in producing dairy cattle replacements. In this second scenario, the
calves may be sold to the replacement operation with the same or other animals purchased
back at a later date or raised under contract. In the dairy industry, both male and female
animals are called calves up to an age of about 5 months. From the age of 6 to 24 months,
Appendix AD - Page 726
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
females are called heifers, with first calving typically occurring at 24 months of age.
Replacements raised off-site may be purchased or returned either as unbred or open (not
pregnant) heifers at an age of about 13 months or as bred heifers at an age usually of 22 to 23
months. Three groups of animals will be present on dairy farms that raise replacements on-site:
calves, heifers, and mature lactating and dry (mature nonlactating) cows. Usually, the total
number of calves and heifers present will be between 50 and 60 percent of the size of the
milking herd.
Lactating dairy cows are milked at least twice per day, but milking three times a day has
become more common, especially with higher milk producing herds. With the exception of
young calves until weaning, dairy cattle are fed a roughage-based diet or ration composed
primarily of silages and hays supplemented with feed grains and by-product feedstuffs to
ensure adequate levels of energy, protein, minerals, and other essential nutrients. Citrus pulp,
beet pulp, meat and bone meal, and cottonseed meal are examples of by-product feedstuffs.
Young calves are initially fed colostrum, which is the milk produced during the first 4 to 5 days
after calving that cannot be marketed, and then a milk replacer until weaning and a complete
shift to a roughage-based ration.
A.3.1 Dairy Confinement Facilities
The free-stall barn is the predominant type of housing system used on larger dairy farms for
lactating cows. In a free-stall barn, cows are commonly grouped by stage of lactation in large
pens with free access to feed bunks, waterers, and stalls for resting. The standard free-stall
barn design has a feed alley in the center of the barn separating the two feed bunks on each
side. Each side of the barn has an alley between the feed bunk and the first row of free-stalls
and an alley that extends between the first row of free-stalls facing the feed bunk and a second
row of free-stalls facing the side wall of the structure. These are the primary areas of manure
accumulation, with little manure defecated in the free-stalls. There may or may not be access
to an outside dry lot for exercise or to a pasture for exercise and grazing. In warmer climates,
cows may simply be confined in a dry lot with unlimited access to feed bunks, waters, and
usually an open structure to provide shade.
With both free-stall barns and dry lot production facilities, milking occurs in a specialized facility
known as a milking center. A milking center has three components: a holding area where cows
are held prior to milking, a milking parlor where the cows are milked, and an area where milk is
stored in refrigerated tanks, known as bulk tanks, until picked up for processing and the milking
equipment is cleaned. Holding areas may be either enclosed or open areas depending largely
on climate.
There are two predominant housing systems for young unweaned calves: individual pens in an
enclosed building and hutches that tend to reduce disease problems. Hutches are small,
lightweight structures, typically of fiberglass or plywood construction, that can be easily moved.
Individual hutches, sized for one calf, are located in a small fenced area to provide shelter from
inclement weather as well as access to fresh air and sunlight. Hutches are routinely relocated to
reduce disease transmission. Older calves are either housed in pens as groups in a totally or
partially enclosed building or in portable super hutches in a small fenced area.
Appendix AD - Page 727
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Heifers are most commonly raised on dry lots with or without shelter, but may also be raised on
pasture or in dedicated free-stall barns. Dry cows may be removed from the milking herd to dry
lots, pasture, or dedicated free-stall barns.
A.3.2 Dairy Manure Management
Manure is usually removed from free-stall barn alleys at least twice daily, and often more
frequently, by either scraping or flushing. A mechanical scraper or a tractor-mounted blade is
used to move the manure to a collection pit at one end of the barn. From the collection pit,
manure is transferred by pump or gravity to a tank or an earthen pond for storage until disposal
by land application. Milking center wastewater may be added to these collection pits to
facilitate pumping or gravity flow, since scraped dairy cow manure is quite viscous with a total
solids content of around 12 to 13 percent. With scrape systems, other options for managing
milking center wastewater, which is generated when the milking parlor and milking equipment
are cleaned, are transfer directly into the manure storage structure or transfer to a dedicated
lagoon.
Flush systems are the most common in warmer climates where flush water is unlikely to freeze.
Flush systems for dairy cattle operate like flush systems for swine and laying hens, with the
manure and flush water discharged into an anaerobic lagoon, which is normally the source of
the water used for flushing. With flushing systems, milking center wastewater usually is
transferred to the lagoon used for manure stabilization and storage.
The type of manure management used by a particular dairy is often a function of the bedding
choice for the lactating cows. Common bedding materials include sand, sawdust, rubber
mattresses, and water beds. As sand is very abrasive on manure pumps, flush systems are
rarely used when sand is the chosen bedding material.
When sand bedding is used, it accumulates in the waste storage facility and must be eventually
mechanically removed every several years or else the volume of available manure storage
becomes greatly diminished. Some larger dairies will install sand removal systems, typically
either a sand lane (gravity removal of sand with flush systems) or a mechanical sand separation
system consisting of a cyclone filter or screw auger. Both systems require a high volume of flush
water which is usually secured from the waste storage pond.
Appendix AD - Page 728
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Stilkl float buns
'1 i 'ID
off rsJiip
)pen lot
Wssie
front
freest all
and/or
tot
Roofed
WBSlf
slacking
facility'
\
Waste
storage
si rue litre
Ifflgaieil or Siiiuwl irf
Dairy Waste Handling (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook) (Note that burial is prohibited or highly
regulated in some states.)
In the nation's southern and western states dry lots are more common than the totally
enclosed free stall barns common in the Midwest. Manure accumulations on dry lots for
lactating cows are typically removed by scraping with a tractor-mounted blade and handled as a
solid, similar to the beef feedlot industry. Areas by feed bunks may be scraped daily, with
longer intervals between manure removals in other areas of the lot. Areas by feed bunks may
also be flushed. Manure accumulations in dry lots used for heifers and dry cows are usually
removed by scraping and are handled as a solid. If manure removed from dry lots by scraping is
not land applied immediately, it is stored by stacking on a section of the lot or at a separate
site. Calf and heifer manure may be transferred from a scraped free-stall barn to the storage
structure used for manure, or the lagoon used for flushed manure, or it may be handled as a
solid, depending on the methods of calf and heifer confinement and the handling system used
for the manure from the lactating cows.
Dry lots should have runoff collection and retention basins to prevent the discharge of manure-
contaminated runoff to adjacent surface waters.
Treatment of the manure before land application using large anaerobic digesters (AD) will be
seen more frequently on CAFOs, thanks in part to the work of EPA's Ag STAR program. These
Appendix AD - Page 729
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
large anaerobic digester vessels can be either completely in-ground or above-ground but in
either case the goal is the same - to create electricity or compressed natural gas using the
biogas that develops naturally when the temperature of the manure is raised. The typical
retention time for the manure is 21 days or less. Livestock producers like the benefits of ADs
such as odor reduction, pathogen reduction, and easier transport of the manure nutrients to
the field, such as with center pivots (ability to pump depends on the amount of solid separation
completed by the treatment system.) See EPA's Ag STAR website for more information at:
https://www.epa.gov/agstar
As cattle manure is rather weak in terms of its energy production potential, most ADs will
import substrate material to boost the energy production. Common substrate materials include
waste food, grease, food processing wastes, etc. The addition of a substrate material increases
the energy production and decreases the payback period for the initial investment.
It is not uncommon for large dairy CAFOs to have their AD systems operated by a third party.
A.3.3 Dairy Mortality Management
Although the frequency of mortality in the dairy industry is much less than in the poultry and
swine industries, deaths do occur. Usually, carcass disposal is by rendering, with burial being
the only other realistic option if no rendering facility willing to accept dead animals is located
within a reasonable distance of the farm. (Note that burial is prohibited or highly regulated in
some states.) Carcass composting is also an option, particularly for the disposal of young calf
carcasses, but can be done with adult animals too if the compost operation is properly sized
and managed.
A.4.0 Beef Cattle
There are three different types of operations in the beef industry, with each type corresponding
to a different phase of the production cycle. The first is the cow-calf operation that is the source
of the heifers and steers (castrated males) fed for slaughter. Cow-calf operations typically
maintain a herd of yearling heifers, brood cows, and breeding bulls on pasture or range land to
produce a yearly crop of calves for eventual sale as feeder cattle. In colder climates and during
drought conditions, cow-calf operations using pasture or range land will provide supplemental
feed, primarily hay but also some grain and other feedstuffs. Confinement on dry lots is also an
option used in some cow-calf operations when grazing will not satisfy nutritional needs.
Although pasture or range-based cow-calf operations are most common, operations that
exclusively use dry lots may be encountered. In colder climates, cow-calf operations may have
calving barns allowing cows to calve indoors to reduce calf mortality.
Appendix AD - Page 730
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
gs8
Manure
spreader
Clean water
diversion
mound
Manure
pack
Sediment basin
Waste storage pond
Beef Feedlot Waste Collection (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook)
The second type of operation in the beef industry is known as a backgrounding or stocker
operation. These operations prepare weaned calves for finishing. Backgrounding operations
may be pasture or dry-lot based, or some combination thereof. Relatively inexpensive forages,
crop residues, and pasture are used as feeds, with the objective of building muscle and bone
mass without excessive fat at a relatively low cost. The length of the backgrounding process
may be as short as 30 to 60 days or as long as 6 months. The duration of the backgrounding
process and the size of the animal moving on to the finishing stage of the beef production cycle
depend on several factors. High grain prices favor longer periods of backgrounding by reducing
feed costs for finishing or fattening, while heavier weaning weights shorten the finishing
process. Backgrounded beef cattle may be either sold to a finishing operation as "feeder
cattle," usually at auction, or raised under contract with a finishing operation. It is common for
large finishing operations to have cattle backgrounded under contract to ensure a steady supply
of animals. In some instances, cow-calf and backgrounding operations will be combined.
The final phase of the beef cattle production cycle is the finishing or feedlot phase where a high
energy, grain-based ration with only a small amount of roughage is fed to produce rapid weight
gain and desirable carcass characteristics. The larger commercial finishing operations usually
feed a complete ration that is a mixture of feed grains, roughage, and other ingredients.
Usually, the finishing phase begins with 8 to 9-month old animals weighing about 700-800
pounds. Somewhere between 150 and 180 days, these animals will reach the slaughter weights
Appendix AD - Page 731
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
of 1,250 to 1,350 pounds for heifers and 1,350 and 1,450 pounds for steers, and a new finishing
cycle begins. Some feedlot operators will immediately start with younger animals weighing
about 275 pounds or older and heavier animals. This will either extend the finishing cycle to
about 270 days or shorten it to about 100 days. Beef cattle in the finishing phase are known as
"cattle on feed." Finished cattle are "fed cattle."
A.4.1 Beef Confinement Facilities
In addition to pasture or range-based cow-calf and backgrounding operations, beef cattle may
be raised on unpaved or partially paved open lots or in bedded and slatted confinement barns
with pits. When feedlots and dry lots on cow-calf and backgrounding operations are partially
paved, it is the areas around feed bunks and sources of drinking water that will be paved. These
are high animal traffic areas and have high rates of manure accumulation.
A typical beef cattle feedlot is divided into a series of large pens to allow animals to be grouped
by age. In each pen, there are feed bunks, sources of drinking water, and probably shaded areas
in warm climates. Feed bunks located along one side of a pen are known as fence line feed
bunks, and feed is delivered with specially equipped trucks or tractor-drawn feed wagons from
a feed alley. Mechanical feed bunks may be located in the center of a pen or used as a divider
between two pens. Although mechanical feed bunks allow cattle to feed on both sides of the
feed bunk, their use is generally limited to smaller operations. Feed bunk space per head is an
important parameter in beef cattle feedlot design. The large commercial feedlots may also have
a feed mill and an area for treating sick animals.
Commercial sale
Compost or
Haul solids
Runoff
Solids
Irrigated or hauled effluent
Beef Waste Handling (Source: USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Note that burial is prohibited or highly
regulated in some states.)
Appendix AD - Page 732
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.4.2 Beef Manure Management
Manure produced by beef cattle on open lots is primarily handled as a solid, with removal by
scraping and storing the collected manure in mounds on the lot. Manure accumulation is
typically highest around feed bunks and sources of drinking water. The complete removal of
manure from open lots used for beef cattle production may only occur annually during summer
months to take advantage of natural drying to facilitate handling as a solid.
Open lots for beef cattle should also have runoff collection and retention basins to prevent the
discharge of manure-contaminated runoff to adjacent surface waters.
A.4.3 Beef Mortality Management
As in the dairy industry, the frequency of mortality in the beef cattle industry is much lower
than in the poultry and swine industries; however, deaths do occur. Carcass disposal by
rendering is the primary option. Additionally, composting may be used to manage mortalities.
Given the size of most beef cattle operations, burial cannot generally be considered a realistic
alternative in the context of water quality protection.
A.5.0 Land Application of Manure
Livestock and poultry manures have value as sources of plant nutrients for crop production.
Historically, livestock or poultry production and crop production have been integrated
activities. As animal production units have been consolidated into fewer but larger operations,
a decoupling of animal and crop production activities has gradually occurred. As a result, some
livestock and poultry producers do not have adequate land under their ownership or direct
control for the proper utilization of all the manure that is generated. In this case, producers
may sell or give away manure to nearby crop farmers.
Manure handled as a solid, such as broiler, turkey, and solid cattle feedlot manure, is typically
surface applied to cropland using either tractor-drawn or truck mounted box-type manure
spreaders. To reduce potential pollutant transport in surface runoff, disking or plowing may
follow application to incorporate the manure into the soil. Manure handled as a semi-solid or
slurry, such as dairy cattle manure scraped from free-stall barns, is typically applied to cropland
using tractor-drawn or truck-mounted tanks. This type of manure typically can be surface
applied and may be subsequently incorporated into the soil by disking or plowing. Manure
handled as a semi-solid may also be directly injected into the soil using specially designed
spreading equipment. Manure handled as a liquid, such as flushed dairy and swine manure, and
effluent from open cattle feedlots may be applied to cropland using tractor-drawn or truck-
mounted tanks or irrigation systems. Due to the volume of manure when handled as a liquid,
irrigation is a fairly common method for land application of liquid manure due to the reduction
in labor requirements. Like semi-solid or slurry manure, liquid manure may be incorporated
into the soil after application or may be directly injected into the soil.
Livestock and poultry manure has many beneficial properties in addition to the nitrogen and
phosphorus needed by growing crops. As opposed to chemical fertilizers, manure improves soil
quality and increases the soil's ability to absorb and retain moisture. Unfortunately, there are
some areas in the country where the land available on farms for manure application is
Appendix AD - Page 733
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
insufficient to accept all of the manure produced. In the USDA report, Manure Nutrients
Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureiand to Assimilate Nutrients, Kellogg et al.
(2000) used estimates of livestock populations and land available for manure applications from
the Census of Agriculture. They found in some counties the production of recoverable manure
nutrients exceeds the assimilative capacity of all the cropland and pastureiand available for
manure application (without excessive build-up of nutrients) in the county. The number of such
counties has significantly increased since their initial analysis conducted in 1982. Figures 1-1
and 1-2 show the regions of the country with excess manure nitrogen and phosphorus
assuming no export of manure from the farm, respectively (Kellogg et al., 2000).
A.6.0 Environmental Impacts
Livestock and poultry manure, if not properly handled and managed by the CAFO, can
contribute pollutants to the environment and pose a risk to human and ecological health. The
components of manure most commonly associated with animal waste include nutrients
(including ammonia), organic matter, solids, pathogens, and odorous compounds. Animal waste
can also be a source of salts and various trace elements (including metals), as well as pesticides,
antibiotics, and hormones. These manure components can be released into the environment
through spills or runoff if manure and wastewater are not properly handled and managed.
A CAFO's process wastewater and manure can enter the environment through a number of
pathways. These include surface runoff and erosion, overflows from lagoons, spills and other
dry-weather discharges, leaching into soil and ground water, and volatilization of compounds
(e.g., ammonia) and subsequent redeposition on the landscape. Manure and wastewater can
be released from an operation's animal confinement area, treatment and storage lagoons, and
manure stockpiles, and from cropland where manure is land-applied.
EPA's National Water Assessment Report provides information on water quality conditions
reported by states to EPA under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Data
submitted in 2010 indicates that the agricultural sector including crop production, pasture and
range grazing, and CAFOs is the leading probable source contributing impairments to the
nation's rivers and streams. The top causes of impairments in assessed rivers and streams are
pathogens, sediment, nutrients, and organic enrichment/oxygen depletion - all of which are
environmental impacts associated with over application or accidental spills of livestock manure,
among other agricultural point source and non-point sources such as wildlife and rural septic
tanks. The agricultural sector is also the fourth leading contributor of impairments for the
nation's lakes, ponds, and reservoirs and the fifth leading contributor for probable water quality
impairments in assessed coastal shorelines (EPA 2012b).
Among the reported environmental problems associated with excess nutrients are surface
water (e.g., lakes, streams, rivers, and reservoirs) and ground water quality degradation, and
adverse effects on estuarine water quality and resources in coastal areas. Scientific literature
documents how this degradation might contribute to increased risk to aquatic and wildlife
ecosystems; an example is the large number of fish kills in recent years. A literature survey
conducted for the 2003 CAFO Rule identified more than 150 reports of discharges to surface
waters from hog, poultry, dairy, and cattle operations. Human and livestock animal health
Appendix AD - Page 734
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
might also be affected by excessive nitrate levels in drinking water and exposure to waterborne
human pathogens in manure (EPA 1998).
While most livestock producers understand the economic value of manure and many CAFOs
follow individual nutrient management plans tailored to their farm conditions and the crops
being grown, incidents can result from over application (too much), improper application (too
close to surface waterways), unpredictable precipitation events, poor management, and
accidental spills. Assistance for CAFOs in developing site-specific nutrient management plans is
available through NRCS, private advisors and many state programs.
A.6.1 Nutrients
Animal wastes contain significant quantities of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus.
The nutrients provide a valuable resource that can save money by replacing chemical fertilizer.
It is desirable to minimize nutrients lost from improper storage and land application. Manure
nitrogen occurs in several forms, including ammonia and nitrate. Ammonia and nitrate have
fertilizer value for crop growth, but these forms of nitrogen can also produce adverse
environmental impacts when they are transported in excess quantities to the environment.
Ammonia is of environmental concern because it is toxic to aquatic life and it exerts a direct
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) on the receiving water, thereby reducing dissolved oxygen
levels and the ability of a water body to support aquatic life. Excessive amounts of ammonia
can lead to eutrophication, or nutrient over-enrichment, of surface waters.
While nitrate is a valuable fertilizer because it is biologically available to plants, nitrate is mobile
in soil and can leach to ground water. Excessive concentrations of nitrate in drinking water can
produce adverse human health impacts such as methemoglobinemia in infants. Generally,
people drawing water from domestic wells are at greater risk of nitrate poisoning than those
drawing from public water sources, because domestic wells are typically shallower and not
subject to wellhead protection monitoring or treatment requirements. Note that nitrate is not
removed by conventional drinking water treatment processes but requires additional, relatively
expensive treatment units.
Phosphorus is of concern in surface waters because it can lead to eutrophication and the
resulting adverse impacts—fish kills, reduced biodiversity, objectionable tastes and odors,
increased drinking water treatment costs, and growth of toxic organisms. Phosphorus is
primarily sorbed to soil colloids and transportation to surface water occurs with soil erosion.
Soluble phosphorus exists especially when soil is saturated with respect to P and has been
found to leach in very sandy soils after many years of manure application. At concentrations
greater than 1.0 milligrams per liter, phosphorus can interfere with the coagulation process in
drinking water treatment plants thus reducing treatment efficiency. Phosphorus is of particular
concern in fresh waters, where plant growth is typically limited by phosphorus levels. Under
high pollutant loads, however, fresh water may become nitrogen-limited. Thus, both nitrogen
and phosphorus loads can contribute to eutrophication.
Appendix AD - Page 735
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.6.2 Dissolved Oxygen
Livestock manures contain many carbon-based, biodegradable compounds. Once these
compounds reach surface water, they are decomposed by aquatic bacteria and other
microorganisms. During this process dissolved oxygen is consumed, which in turn reduces the
amount of oxygen available for aquatic animals. Severe reductions in dissolved oxygen levels
can lead to fish kills. Even moderate decreases in oxygen levels can adversely affect water
bodies through decreases in biodiversity characterized by the loss of fish and other aquatic
animal populations, and a dominance of species that can tolerate low levels of dissolved
oxygen.
A.6.3 Solids
Solids from animal manure include the manure itself and any other elements that have been
mixed with it. These elements can include spilled feed, bedding and litter materials, hair, and
feathers. In general, the impacts of solids include increasing the turbidity of surface waters,
physically hindering the functioning of aquatic plants and animals, and providing a protected
environment for pathogens. Increased turbidity reduces penetration of light through the water
column, thereby limiting the growth of desirable aquatic plants that serve as a critical habitat
for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. Solids that settle out as bottom deposits can
alter or destroy habitat for fish and benthic organisms. Solids also provide a medium for the
accumulation, transport, and storage of other pollutants, including nutrients, pathogens, and
trace elements.
A.6.4 Pathogens
Pathogens are defined as disease-causing microorganisms. A subset of microorganisms,
including species of bacteria, viruses, and parasites, can cause sickness and disease in humans
and are known as human pathogens. EPA's National Water Assessment Report indicates that
pathogens are the leading stressor in impaired rivers and streams and the second leading
stressor in impaired estuaries, coastal shorelines, and wetlands (EPA 2012b). Livestock manure
may contain a variety of microorganism species, some of which are human pathogens. Multiple
species of pathogens can be transmitted directly from a host animal's manure to surface water.
Pathogens already in surface water can increase in number because of loadings of animal
manure nutrients and organic matter.
A number of pathogens are associated with livestock and poultry manure but only a few pose a
known or potential threat to humans. The six human pathogens that account for more than 90
percent of food and waterborne diseases in humans are found in livestock manure. These
organisms are: Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp. (non-typhoid), Listeria monocytogenes,
Escherichia coli 0157:1-17, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Giardia lamblia. All of these organisms
may be readily transmitted from one animal to another in CAFO settings. Pathogens from
animal wastes can enter water sources, resulting in contamination of surface waters. In
addition to threats to human health through drinking water exposures, pathogens from animal
manure can also threaten human health through shellfish consumption and recreational
contact such as swimming in contaminated waters. An important feature relating to the
potential transmission for disease for each of these organisms is the relatively low infectious
Appendix AD - Page 736
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
dose in humans. The protozoan species Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia are
frequently found in animal manure and can cause infection in humans. Bacteria such as
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella spp. are also often found in livestock manure and have
been associated with waterborne disease. The bacteria Listeria monocytogenes is ubiquitous in
nature and is commonly found in the intestines of wild and domestic animals.
A.6.5 Salts
The salinity of animal manure is directly related to the presence of dissolved mineral salts. In
particular, significant concentrations of soluble salts containing sodium and potassium remain
from undigested feed that passes unabsorbed through animals. Other major constituents
contributing to manure salinity are calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate,
carbonate, and nitrate. Especially in arid soils salt buildup deteriorates soil structure, reduces
permeability, contaminates ground water, and reduces crop yields. In fresh waters, increasing
salinity can disrupt the balance of the ecosystem, making it difficult for resident species to
remain. Salts also contribute to degradation of drinking water supplies, primarily from runoff
containing manure.
A.6.6 Trace Elements
EPA's National Water Assessment Report indicates that metals (other than mercury) are the
fourth leading stressor in impaired wetlands and the fifth leading stressor in impaired lakes
(EPA 2012b). Trace elements of environmental concern in manure include arsenic, copper,
selenium, zinc, cadmium, molybdenum, nickel, lead, iron, manganese, aluminum, and boron. Of
these, arsenic, copper, selenium, and zinc are often added to animal feed as growth stimulants
or biocides. Trace elements can also end up in manure through use of pesticides used to
suppress houseflies and other pests. Trace elements have been found in manure lagoons and
drainage ditches, agricultural drainage wells, and tile line inlets and outlets. They have also
been found in rivers adjacent to hog and cattle operations. Trace elements in agronomically
applied manures are generally expected to pose little risk to human health and the
environment. Most crops, for example, beneficially use a small amount of copper and zinc to
complete their life cycle but any amount not assimilated through plant uptake can accumulate
in the soil (Novak et al., 2004). Repeated manure application in excess of agronomic rates could
result in cumulative metal loadings to levels that potentially affect human health and the
environment.
A.6.7 Antibiotics
Antibiotics are used in AFOs for the prevention, treatment and control of animal diseases and
can be expected to appear in animal wastes. Antibiotics are used both to treat illness and as
feed additives to promote growth or to improve feed conversion efficiency. Between 60 and 80
percent of all livestock and poultry receive antibiotics during their productive lifespan. The
primary mechanisms of elimination are in urine and bile, so essentially all of an antibiotic
administered is eventually excreted, whether unchanged or in metabolite form. The use of the
same antibiotics for humans and livestock has been noted by the World Health Organization
(WHO) and others who are concerned that the effectiveness of these antibiotics in treating
human diseases could decrease. The emergence of resistant bacteria is of particular concern
Appendix AD - Page 737
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
because such infections are more difficult to treat and require drugs that are often less readily
available, more expensive, and more toxic. The Food and Drug Administration issued a guidance
in 2012 encouraging the judicious use of antimicrobial drugs in food animals. They are
continuing to work with the pharmaceutical industry to phase out the use in livestock and
poultry of medically important antibiotics for human health.
A.6.8 Pesticides and Hormones in CAFOs
Hormones and pesticides are chemicals commonly found in CAFO manure, and both have been
linked with endocrine disruption of fish and invertebrates in the surrounding environments.
Several forms of estrogens, androgens, or a combination of both have been detected in dairy
waste (Zheng et al. 2008), and poultry litter (Jenkins et al. 2006). Pesticides, especially those
that are used for treatment of parasites, have also been detected in the environment following
manure application (Floate et al. 2005).
Hormones are naturally occurring chemicals produced by animals to regulate physiological
processes such as metabolism, growth, and reproduction. Natural steroid hormones include
estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone. Synthetic steroid hormones, which mimic the
actions of the naturally occurring compounds, may be administered to livestock to promote
better muscle growth, produce leaner meat, improve feed conversion efficiency, and improve
breeding. Other types of hormones (non-steroid hormones or protein hormones) may also be
given to promote growth and increase milk production. Hormones categorized as progestins
and gonadotropins may be administered via injections or other means to improve breeding
efficiency. A complete list of FDA approved steroid hormones used as implants and their
specific use for growth promotion can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title
21, Parts 522 and 556.
Feedlot effluents containing hormones have been shown to affect fish in adjacent streams
causing decreased synthesis of testosterone, smaller testis size, and general demasculinization
of those fish (Orlando et al. 2004). Other effects of hormones in the aquatic environment may
include feminization or intersex condition in fish and increases in concentrations of proteins
related to egg laying in both male and female fish.
Varieties of pesticides are approved for use in feedlot animals for control of insects and
parasites, and can enter process wastewater via runoff from topical applications or from
manure. These compounds are administered via injection, insecticidal ear tags, or oral
consumption in feed/minerals. They may also be applied directly to the skin as pour-on
formulation or when animals (especially cattle) pass under a backrubber/oiler or dust bag
where insecticides are dispensed to the skin. Ivermectin is a common pesticide that can be
applied by several methods to livestock for control of roundworms, lung worms, cattle grubs,
mites, lice, and horn flies. Some pesticides are used in CAFOs specifically to control flies. For
example, the insecticide methoprene is sometimes used as a feed or mineral additive to control
horn flies. Methoprene passes through the digestive tract of animals and remains in the
manure where horn flies lay eggs. The pesticide mimics an insect growth regulator called
juvenile hormone, and disrupts the life cycle and development of the larval flies.
Appendix AD - Page 738
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Insecticides are often designed to interfere with hormonal processes like molting, growth, or
reproduction in invertebrates. Residues of some insecticides are well documented for adversely
affecting other non-target populations of insects. Additionally, effluent from CAFOs or runoff
resulting from spreading manure on pastures or cropland introduces pesticides into the soil and
aquatic environment where aquatic insects may be affected. Parasiticides like ivermectin and
some insecticides are known to cause mortality to aquatic insects (Schweitzer et al. 2010).
Careful use of hormones, pesticides, insecticides, and antibiotics for production agriculture is
important to protect the animals, the livestock producers, the public and the environment.
Because these substances are often present in manure, careful management and land
application of manure and process wastewater is equally important.
Appendix AD - Page 739
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AE -
Management/Soil Science
Appendix AE - Page 740
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT AND SOIL SCIENCE
Understanding soil science and soil fertility concepts are instrumental in developing,
understanding, and implementing nutrient management plans (NMPs) that allow for maximum
utilization of the nutrients in the soil while minimizing the runoff of nutrients and pollutants.
CAFO inspectors should become aware of the following basic nutrient management and soil
science concepts.
Soil Properties
Inspectors should understand the basics of soil properties and how the soil retains nutrients.
The nutrients in the soil are a source of information for NMP development and implementation.
Important soil priorities are:
• Organic matter is derived from decomposed plant and animal material.
• Bulk density is the mass of dry soil per unit of bulk volume, including the airspace.
Soils with a high proportion of pore space to solids have lower bulk densities than
those that are more compact and have less pore space. As bulk density increases,
pore space is reduced, which inhibits root growth. Fine-textured soils such as silt
loams, clays, and clay loams generally have lower bulk densities than sandy soils.
Sandy soils typically have less total pore space than finer textured soils.
• Texture is the fineness or coarseness of the mineral particles in the soil and is
determined by the relative amounts of different sized mineral particles in the soil.
• Aggregation is the cementing or binding together of several soil particles into a
secondary unit.
• Structure describes how soil particles are arranged or grouped together to form
structural pieces (building blocks) called peds or aggregates that vary in shape and
size. The arrangement of the aggregates determines the soil's structure. Good
structure allows favorable movement of air and water and allows and encourages
extensive root development.
• Color is an indicator of the soil's composition. Soil colors usually result from various
oxidation states of the present minerals. Brighter colors (yellow and red) are an
indication of iron oxides and suggest good drainage and aeration. Grayish soils can
indicate iron reduction caused by permanently saturated soil. Mottled color soils of
various shades of yellow, brown, and gray are indicative of a fluctuating aerobic and
anaerobic environment. Very dark browns and black soil colors can be an indication
of high levels of organic matter.
• Retention/water-holding capacity is the amount of water retained in a soil that is
dependent on the interaction of soil texture, bulk density, and aggregation. The
term field capacity defines the amount of water remaining in a soil after downward
gravitational flow has stopped, and it is expressed as a percent by weight.
• Soil drainage is defined as the rate and extent of water removal. This includes water
movement across the surface and downward through the soil. Topography is a very
Appendix AE - Page 741
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
important factor in soil drainage. Other factors that affect drainage include the soil
layers' texture and soil structure.
• Cat-ion Exchange Capacity (CEC) is a measure of the soil's ability to retain cat-ions
and is indicative of the soil's fertility. Soil materials have a net surface charge, usually
negative, that allows them to hold and retain ions (i.e., nutrients) against leaching.
The net negative charge of a soil is largely attributed to the clay and organic matter
in the soil and will naturally attract positively charged nutrients and repel negatively
charged nutrients. Cat-ions, positively charged nutrients (e.g., ammonium (NH3+)),
remain in the soil while anions, negatively charged nutrients (e.g., nitrate (N03-)),
are repelled and easily leached out of the soil.
• Soil Fertility is the ability of a soil to provide nutrients for plant growth.
• Soil pH affects plant nutrient availability because pH greatly influences the solubility
of certain elements. Most crops grow best in slightly acidic soils (pH 6.0 to 6.5).
Soil and Plant Availability of Nutrients
Soil is a pathway for nutrients to flow to surface and groundwater and soil is a medium for
nutrient transformations. The nutrient transformations affect the amount and form of nitrogen
and phosphorus available to the plant. Appropriate manure and fertilizer applications in an
NMP will account for many of the transformations. It is important for an inspector to
understand the behavior of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil.
Nitrogen Cycle and Nitrogen Movement in the Soil
Nitrogen is an essential part of amino acids, the building blocks for proteins, making it an
important plant nutrient. Nitrogen in the soil exists in both organic (proteins, amino acids, urea,
in living organisms and decaying plant and animal tissues) and inorganic forms [ammonium
(NH4+), nitrite (N02-), nitrate (N03-), and ammonia (NH3 (gas)). The majority of nitrogen in the
soils is in an organic form which is largely unavailable for plant uptake.
Appendix AE - Page 742
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
The Nitrogen Cycle
Atmospheric nitrogen gases,
mainly N2 (N = N),
with traces of NO, NO^
N20, and NH
Symbiotic
biological
N fixation
Ammonia
Anima s
HNO
Nitric
acid
Organic matter
and other R — NH
Fertilizers
NH, NH. NO
Erosion
and
runoff
losses
7~7
Plant tissue N
Microbial I
synthesis
Soil
Organisms
(SO)
so
Immobilization
Ammonium
NH
Nitrate
NO
Soluable
Organic
Nitrogen
(SON)
Nitrite
NO
Adsorbed
and
fixed
by clay
colloids
Desorption
Adsorption or fixation
I
Leaching
Immobilization
Leaching
loss
When manure is land applied as an organic compound, only a small fraction of the nitrogen is
soluble as ammonium and plant available. However, a larger portion of that nitrogen is
mineralized by microbes and is slowly released over many years. Nitrogen mineralization rates
of the organic nitrogen present in manure vary depending on various environmental factors
such as soil type, the manure source, and climate.
Nitrate is a negatively charged ion that is not adsorbed to the negatively charged soil mineral
surfaces. If in excess, the negatively charged nutrient is repelled by the soil surfaces and lost to
groundwater through leaching. Factors that contribute to nitrogen leaching or runoff include
over-application of nitrogen as fertilizers or manure particularly on sandy or coarse-textured
soils; improperly timed applications of nitrogen, poorly designed or nonexistent soil
conservation measures; and periods of exceptionally heavy rainfall.
Nitrogen and Legume Credits
The largest amount of nitrogen is found in the atmosphere as an inert gas (N2). Plants are not
able to absorb gaseous nitrogen. Nitrogen becomes plant available when specialized bacteria
fix nitrogen gas. Leguminous plants, such as alfalfa and soybeans, have a symbiotic relationship
Appendix AE - Page 743
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, where the bacteria supply sufficient nitrogen to the plant and the
plant supplies carbohydrates to the bacteria. Because of that relationship, a legume crop is able
to supply its own nitrogen need and enrich the soil with nitrogen for crops that follow in the
rotation and therefore is considered a nitrogen credit.
Since most of the nitrogen in soils is unavailable to plants, manure is typically applied to crops
to provide the important nutrients that the plant needs. However, if legume crops are planned
in a rotation, legume crops supply nitrogen rather than using nitrogen from the soil. Once the
nitrogen recommendation for a crop is known, the manure application rates can be determined
by subtracting from the total nitrogen recommendation the amount that will be available to the
crop from all other sources. These sources of nitrogen already in the field are referred to a
nitrogen credits. Two common credits of plant available nitrogen (PAN) are organic nitrogen
from prior manure applications that mineralizes to available nitrogen compounds over the
course of the planning period and nitrogen supplied from legume crops.
Phosphorus Cycle and Phosphorus Movement in the Soil
Sources of soil phosphorus include decomposing organic matter, humus, and weathered rock.
Plant available forms of phosphorus include hydrogen phosphate (HPO4 2) and dihydrogen
phosphate (H2PO4 ). Unlike nitrogen, gaseous forms of phosphorus seldom exist and are often
not considered in the phosphorus cycle.
Appendix AE - Page 744
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
The Phosphorus Cycle
Input to soil
Animal
manures and
biosolids
Plant
residues
Organic phosphorus
- Microbial
Plant residue
Humus
Atmospheric
deposition
Mineral
fertilizers
Leaching
(usually minor)
Plant
uptake
Dissolution
Precipitation
Secondary
compounds
(CaP, FeP, MnP, AP)
When phosphate ions are added to a soil, they are quickly (within hours) removed from
solution to form phosphorus containing compounds with very low solubility. Phosphate most
commonly forms compounds with either calcium or iron and aluminum (sometimes
manganese). Initially, some ions are retained on the exchange complex, which makes them
moderately plant available but with time, they undergo sequential reactions that continually
decrease their solubility. These reactions result in phosphorus permanently bonding to the
calcium or aluminum/iron/manganese ions, becoming buried from additional precipitation
reactions. Those reactions can also capture phosphorus within the calcium or
iron/aluminum/manganese particles. That is called phosphorus fixation and it is not easily
reversible.
Additions of fertilizers and manures typically allow for only 10 to 15 percent of added
phosphorus to be taken up by plants because of that fixation capacity. During the early and mid
20th century, farmers applied phosphorus in quantities far in excess of the plants' nutritional
needs and manure has historically been applied at rates to meet plant nitrogen requirements,
which can supply 2 to 4 times the phosphorus requirement. What was not removed in the
harvest accumulates in the soil in an insoluble, unavailable form.
Appendix AE - Page 745
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If not taken up by plants, phosphorus can be lost with surface runoff as dissolved phosphorus (if
not incorporated into a soil) or it can be lost with soil particles through erosion or leaching.
Infiltration, Percolation, Leaching, Runoff and Erosion and its Effects on Water Quality
A primary principle of soil water management is to encourage water movement into, rather
than off the soil. The more water runs off the surface, the less infiltrates into the soil. The
movement of water impacts the movement of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil. As water
enters a soil (infiltration) and moves down through the soil profile (percolation) it carries
dissolved nutrients with it (leaching). Dissolved nutrients can also be carried through runoff
over the soil. Leaching losses occur when the amount of rainfall or irrigation water entering a
soil exceeds the soil's ability to store the excess rainfall or irrigation. The amount and rate of
nutrient losses are influenced by the amount of rainfall or irrigation, the topography of the
landscape, the amount of evaporation, the soil type, and the crop cover.
The goal for the application of nutrients is to make them available to crops. As described above,
as nitrogen (nitrate) percolates through the soil, it can contaminate ground and surface waters.
Nitrate can be toxic because it reduces the capacity for blood to carry oxygen. That can be
lethal to human infants and can alter normal body functioning in adults. Surface runoff waters
from heavily fertilized lands can contain levels of nitrate toxic to livestock. While phosphorus is
not toxic, it can degrade water quality if lost from a soil system in significant quantities.
Excessive growth of algae and other aquatic species takes place in water overly enriched with
nitrogen and phosphorus. This eutrophication process depletes the water of its oxygen, thus
harming aquatic life in the affected waterbody.
Maintaining good soil structure is critical to reducing runoff. Excess water that cannot infiltrate
the soil accumulates on the surface and flows downgrade displacing surface soil particles along
the way (erosion). Soil erosion damages productive soils and can increase nutrient transport to
streams and lakes. Soil properties have an effect on nutrient leaching losses. The physical
properties of sand, silt, and clay, and the relative proportions of each have direct bearing on
nutrient retention. Coarse soils (soils with a high percentage of sand) generally permit greater
nutrient loss than do finer textured soils (soils with higher percentage of silt and clay). Organic
matter content and type and amount of clay have significant influence on retention and
nutrient storage and exchange. Climatic factors and the amount of rain or irrigation water,
along with best management practices, have an effect on the amount of infiltration and
leaching that occurs in the soil.
Many best management practices are available to encourage residue management and to
minimize negative consequences of soil tillage. Excessive tillage destroys the surface and should
be avoided. Tillage across the slope, leaving small ridges, encourages water infiltration. Terraces
can also help control the erosive potential of water movement and increase infiltration into the
soil.
For a more detailed discussion of these concepts, see Appendix A. "Basic Soil Science and Soil
Fertility" of the CAFO Permit Writer's Manual.
Appendix AE - Page 746
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AF -
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Biosecurity
Procedures for Visits to Livestock and Poultry
Facilities
Appendix AF - Page 747
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)
Biosecurity Procedures for Visits to Livestock and Poultry Facilities
General
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE/PURPOSE
This procedure minimizes the risk of EPA personnel and those acting on their behalf (e.g.,
contractors, grantees, and senior environmental employment staff), here after called "EPA
personnel," transmitting animal diseases from livestock or poultry facilities, to livestock or
poultry at another location. Livestock and poultry facilities include ranches, farms, dairies, feed
yards, sale yards, swine premises, slaughterhouses, zoos, veterinarians, laboratories and other
facilities where there are animals or unprocessed animal tissues, secretions or excretions, here
after called "livestock and poultry facilities".
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
These procedures apply to EPA personnel whose job responsibilities require them to make visits
to livestock or poultry facilities. These visits may be conducted as part of an inspection, to
conduct environmental monitoring, as part of a response action or for other purposes.
OECA has developed this SOP for EPA employees and it is intended solely for internal
management purposes. It does not create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law. OECA may periodically revise this SOP to make improvements and/or to reflect changes in
EPA policy. OECA reserves the right to act at variance with this procedure.
If, on a case by case basis, an EPA employee believes a variance is needed from a provision of
this SOP, the situation should be discussed with the appropriate safety officer who can provide
site- specific guidance. Any such variance must be explained and documented. Varying from
this procedure does not disqualify information obtained for any purpose.
DEFINITIONS
Definitions for certain terms included in this SOP are provided in OECA's Standard Operating
Procedure Definitions document available on the OECA Document Control SharePoint site.
EXTENSIVE ANIMAL CONTACT
• Extensive animal contact activities involve prolonged, direct contact with livestock or
poultry or unprocessed animal tissues, secretions orexcretions.
FOREIGN ANIMAL DISEASES
• Foreign animal diseases in the U.S. include highly pathogenic avian influenza, exotic
Newcastle Disease, foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever, and African swine
fever.
FIELD ACTIVITIES
• See OECA's Standard Operating Procedure Definitionsdocument.
Appendix AF - Page 748
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
HIGH RISK LOCATIONS
• High risk locations are those with existing emergency animal disease events.
LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY FACILITIES
• Include ranches, farms, dairies, feed yards, sale yards, swine premises,
slaughterhouses, zoos, veterinarians, laboratories, and other facilities where there
are animals or unprocessed animal tissues, secretions orexcretions.
LEVEL 1 VISIT
• Visit to a farm/ranch that entails only an office or home visit that is not in a high risk
location, and where no extensive contact isanticipated.
LEVEL 2 VISIT
• Visit to a farm/ranch where EPA personnel expect to walk around buildings, but not
enter any confinement areas and expect to have minimal contact with livestock or
poultry. The visit is not in a high risk location, and no extensive contact is
anticipated.
LEVEL 3 VISIT
• Visit to a farm/ranch where there will be close contact, or a reasonable expectation
of close contact, with livestock or poultry (walking through narrowly confined
pens/lots where animals are within reach). The visit is not in a high risk location, and
no extensive contact isanticipated.
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY
EPA personnel must comply with all applicable basic health and safety training requirements
under Order 1440.2 Health and Safety Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field Activities.
Supervisors must ensure that these requirements are met. EPA personnel should monitor for
any revised or additional health and safety orders, policies and guidance that may affect them.
Prior to the inspection/field investigation, a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) must be prepared to
determine any health and safety hazards associated with the visit, and placed in the project file.
Additionally, a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) must be prepared for each field personnel's position.
If the EPA personnel's field activities include compliance monitoring or field investigations, the
individuals must ensure they have completed all relevant inspector training as required under
EPA Orders 3500.1 and 3510.
REFERENCES/OTHER ASSOCIATED PROCEDURES
• USDA/NRCS General Manual, Title 130, Part 403, Subpart H.
• EPA Order 1440.2, Health and Safety Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field
Activities
• SHEM Guideline 51, Mandatory Health and Safety Training
Appendix AF - Page 749
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• EPA Order 3500.1 Training Requirements for EPA Personnel Who Are Authorized to
Conduct Civil Compliance Inspections/Field Investigations and EPA Inspector
Supervisors, September 30, 2014
• EPA Order 3510 Training Requirements for Federal Credentials for Inspections and
Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes and other Compliance
Responsibilities, updated October 31, 2012
• Livestock and Poultry Operation Inspections Under EPA's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Program, fact sheet, Sept. 2014, EPA305-F-14-001
• SHEM Guideline 29, Permit Required Confined Space
PROCEDURE
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
EPA personnel should be aware of personal health and safety issues when visiting livestock and
poultry facilities and consult Health and Safety staff with questions about proper procedures
and equipment needed. Livestock and poultry facilities may include areas defined by
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as "confined spaces" (e.g., manure pits,
grain silos, manure digesters, holding tanks/vaults/sumps/hoppers), which may have a
potentially hazardous atmosphere and impair the ability to self-rescue. EPA personnel should
not enter such areas.31 In addition, extreme cold or hot conditions may necessitate adaptation
of these procedures; personnel may want to consult with Health and Safety staff regarding any
needed modifications to this SOP.
The following clothing and supplies should be considered for visits to livestock and poultry
facilities.
CLOTHING/PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
• Plastic coveralls (disposable outerwear) or cloth coveralls
• Standard steel-toed safety boots with disposable bootcovers
• Disposable gloves (e.g., nitrile, orvinyl)
• Hairnets
• Filtering face piece (respiratory protection beyond this is not anticipated but if
necessary, would require additional supplies and procedures)
• Safety glasses with impact protection
• Hardhats
31 If EPA personnel need to enter permit required confined spaces, OSHA requires that your employer develop
written procedures, an entry permit system, and training for confined space entry. All appropriate safety
precautions, which may include the use of appropriate air monitoring devices and personal protective equipment
(PPE), must be followed. Refer to SHEM Guideline 29, Permit-Required Confined Space (internal EPA link)
Appendix AF - Page 750
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SUPPLIES (SUPPLIES MUST BE APPROPRIATE TO PLANNED ACTIVITIES, SEE SECTION 2.3FOR
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES)
• Water container(s) for potable water
• EPA-approved disinfectant and relevant safety data sheets(SDS)
• Spray bottle for disinfecting small items
• Pump sprayer for disinfecting large items
• Long-handled brush
• Trash bags and zip-lock bags
• Paper towels
• EPA-approved soap or antibacterial wipes or products
• Bucket
• Duct tape to secure plastic boot covers, coveralls, etc.
• Waste containers for storing disinfectant rinsate, other liquid waste
• Plastic tub for storing "dirty" equipment and PPE in the vehicle
• Insect repellant
• First aid kit, including tick removal tool
FACILITY-PROVIDED TRANSPORTATION
EPA personnel may accept offers of facility-provided transportation within a facility if the total
value of the transportation is $20 or less. Consult with your ethics counselor if any of the
following conditions apply:
• The total value of the transportation exceeds $20, or
• You will be transported in non-ground vehicle (e.g., aircraft or helicopter)or
• You will likely be transported across more than one facility.
With prior approval, the Office of General Counsel may be able to accept the gift of travel
pursuant to 31 USC 1353 through use of the ethics travel form. To use the ethics travel form,
you must: be on travel status (more than 50 miles from the duty station); have a facility
representative accompany you; and be on travel in connection with a meeting or educational
tour (not an inspection).
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
The following procedures should be used to clean equipment, PPE, vehicle tires, and other
items that become contaminated.
• Select an EPA registered disinfectant that will be active across a wide spectrum of
germs under the conditions in which it will usually be used.
• The state veterinarian, APHIS or the state agriculture department may be able to
assist EPA personnel with selecting an appropriate disinfectant.
Appendix AF - Page 751
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• When on-site, consult the owner or operator to select a location for later
decontamination. Where possible, use an existing decontamination area on-site.
• If there is no designated decontamination area already on-site, select an area on-
site, but in an area that will minimize recontamination when leaving the site. The
area should allow for proper management of the rinsate (e.g., rinsate will not runoff
the property).
• Place clean clothing to change into, as appropriate, in a closed bag at the
decontamination site.
• Place all needed decontamination supplies including sufficient water or accessto
running water at the decontamination site.
• Mix the disinfectant (if not ready-to-use) according to label directions and use
appropriate PPE e.g., gloves, eye protection.
• Brush or rinse the contaminated item to remove all visible manure and otherdebris.
• Apply disinfectant to the item or place item in a container of disinfectant, according
to label directions being careful to allow the disinfectant to remain in contact with
the item for the required length of time if listed on the label.
• Rinse with water if and as directed on the disinfectant label.
• Place the decontaminated item in a clean location or in a clean bag oranother
container.
• Manage or contain rinsate if needed, and asappropriate.
• Dispose of used disinfectant according to label directions.
PROCEDURES FOR VISITING LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY FACILITIES
When planning visits to livestock and poultry facilities, EPA personnel should contact APHIS
and/or the state veterinarian to identify any high risk areas with existing emergency animal
disease events where travel should be avoided. Whenever EPA personnel are directed by the
state veterinarian or APHIS not to enter an area, EPA personnel should refer to section 2.4.2
Procedures for Visits to High Risk Locations and Visits with Extensive Animal Contact. In
addition, this information should be provided to the OECA Office of Compliance's Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Coordinator and/or entered in the OECA Biosecurity
SharePoint site.
PROCEDURES AFTER CONTACT WITH ANIMALS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
If EPA personnel have visited a foreign country where they were exposed to or had contact with
animals (with or without a known contagious disease) they should inform their supervisor and
should not make on-site visits to livestock or poultry facilities for at least 5 calendar days after
their return. Clothing and equipment (including shoes) worn or used when exposed to or
contacting animals must be cleaned (i.e., laundered, or rinsed to remove debris and washed
with disinfectant according to label directions) before they are used at U.S. facilities. If cleaning
is not possible, alternative clothing or equipment should be used.
Appendix AF - Page 752
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
PROCEDURES FOR VISITS TO HIGH RISK LOCATIONS AND VISITS WITH EXTENSIVE ANIMAL
CONTACT
Whenever EPA personnel are directed by the state veterinarian or APHIS not to enter an area,
EPA personnel should provide this information to the OECA Office of Compliance's
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Coordinator and/or enter it in the OECA
Biosecurity SharePoint site and follow the procedures in this section.
As a general rule, EPA will not conduct inspections on livestock or poultry facilities in areas with
ongoing emergency foreign animal disease response activities (e.g., vaccination program,
depopulation, disposal, or virus elimination). EPA will consult with the state veterinarian or
APHIS office to determine when quarantines have ended and it is safe to resume inspections in
the area. In special situations where there is information that demonstrates a substantial risk to
human health or the environment, for example, as a result of a discharge from a poultry or
livestock operation, EPA should consult with the state veterinarian or APHIS office to identify
when it is safe to visit individual operations. Information on these types of situations also
should be provided to the OECA Office of Compliance's CAFO Coordinator and/or entered in the
OECA Biosecurity SharePoint site.
If EPA personnel anticipate they will have extensive contact with animals or unprocessed
animal tissues, secretions or excretions during a visit to a livestock or poultry facility, they
should consult with the state veterinarian or APHIS office and their health and safety staff to
identify appropriate biosecurity procedures.
PROCEDURES FOR VISITS AT NON-HIGH RISK LOCATIONS, AND NO EXTENSIVE CONTACT
The procedures below provide basic biosecurity practices EPA personnel should follow when
visiting farms, ranches, slaughterhouses and other facilities with no known livestock or poultry
diseases and where extensive contact is not planned.
The biosecurity practices below are based on U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS and Natural
Resources Conservation Service32^ (NRCS) procedures. Facility operators may have adopted
more stringent biosecurity measures (e.g., showering and changing clothes to come on to or
leave the premises).
EPA PERSONNEL SHOULD DISCUSS APPROPRIATE BIOSECURITY MEASURES WITH THE
OWNER/OPERATOR AND ARE ENCOURAGED TO ADOPT MORE STRINGENT MEASURES, AS
APPROPRIATE, INTO THE PROCEDURES FOR THAT SPECIFIC FACILITY.
PRIOR TO THE VISIT
• Avoid wearing or using any apparel or equipment that cannot be easily cleaned and
disinfected. Consider bringing bags to keep sensitive equipment such as phones, and
cameras clean.
32 NRCS General Manual, Title 130, Part 403, Subpart H.
Appendix AF - Page 753
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• When visiting a facility with various age groups of one species in one day, visit the
youngest animal group first. Poultry is an exception. Poultry breeding stock should
be visited before other commercial birds.
• Designate a part of the vehicle to carry "dirty" items, preferably separate from the
"clean" part of the vehicle where clean supplies are placed, e.g. the dirty area could
be inside the trunk of a car.
• In consultation with Health and Safety staff, identify an appropriate location such as
an EPA or state laboratory, or office, for disposal of soiled disposable items in case
the owner/operator will not allow the waste to remain on-site.
• While it is highly unlikely that any medical or hazardous wastes would be created, if
you suspect they may be created due to the type of facility or type of inspection
(e.g., involving sampling of wastes), EPA personnel should consult with the
appropriate EPA staff to determine the best handling and disposal methods.
BEGINNING THE VISIT
• Close vehicle windows.
• Park vehicle on paved or gravel areas away from pens, pastures, or areas where
animals may be held to avoid contact with dirt, urine, blood, litter, wastewater or
manure.
• Wash hands with soap and potable water or use antibacterial wipes or gel before
entering the site.
• The facility staff may request that the EPA personnel's vehicle tires be disinfected
prior to entering the facility.
• On entering a facility, inform a responsible facility representative of any and all
other livestock and poultry facilities visited within the previous 48 hours and
whether you entered any animal confinement or waste storage areas.
• Discuss appropriate biosecurity measures with the owner/operator. Facility
operators may have adopted more stringent biosecurity measures (e.g., showering
and changing clothes to come on to or leave the premises). EPA personnel are
encouraged to adopt more stringent measures, as appropriate, into the
procedures for that specific facility.
• Do not enter pens or buildings where animals are housed orconfined.
• EPA personnel should only enter animal confinement areas if it is essential to
complete the goals of the visit, and should be accompanied by or authorized to do
so by the facility operator.
• Avoid contact to the extent possible with livestock, poultry or other animals (wild or
domestic) on any facility.
EPA personnel should follow the appropriate level of biosecurity procedures outlined below
depending on the type and circumstances of the planned visit.
Appendix AF - Page 754
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATE BY RISK LEVEL
Level 1 Visits: Visits to Farms/Ranches That Entail Only Office or Home Visits
In addition to the requirements for visits described in sections 2.4.3.1 and 2.4.3.2, for Level 1
visits:
• Wear clean, steel-toed shoes or boots that can be rinsed and washed with
disinfectant (e.g., avoid wearing suede).
• After the visit, inspect shoes prior to entering the vehicle. Clean shoes or boots if
they became contaminated with urine, blood, wastewater, or manure, according to
decontamination procedures.
After the visit, follow the procedures in sections 2.5 and 2.6 as appropriate.
Level 2 Visits: Visits To Farms/Ranches With Minimal Contact With Livestock
In addition to the requirements for visits under sections 2.4.3.1 and 2.4.3.2, for Level 2 visits:
• Upon arrival and exiting the vehicle, put on new plastic or disinfected rubber boots
or other footwear that has been cleaned and disinfected or wear new disposable
boot covers. The operator may supply boots, boot covers, or other PPE for you to
wear.
• EPA personnel are encouraged to wear disposable coveralls to prevent
contamination of clothing. This decision should be made on a case-by-case basis.
After the visit, follow procedures in sections 2.5 and 2.6 as appropriate.
Level 3 Visits: Visits To Facilities With Close Contact
In addition to the requirements for visits under sections 2.4.3.1 and 2.4.3.2, for Level 3 visits:
• Upon arrival and exiting the vehicle, put on new plastic or disinfected rubber boots
or other footwear that has been cleaned and disinfected or wear new disposable
boot covers. The operator may supply boots, boot covers, or other PPE for you to
wear.
• Put on a pair of new disposable or clean coveralls for each visit if personnel will
have, or there is a reasonable expectation of, close contact with livestock/poultry
(walking through narrowly confined pens/lots where animals are within reach).
• When entering areas where animals will be within reach, personnel should consider
wearing disposable gloves and hair nets.
• After visiting areas in which animals are in close proximity, EPA personnel may
remove disposable items and resume the inspection in apparel appropriate for the
remainder of the visit.
After the visit, follow procedures in sections 2.5 and 2.6 as appropriate.
Appendix AF - Page 755
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
PROCEDURES AT THE COMPLETION OF THE VISIT
• If not discussed earlier, at the end of the visit, inform the operator of the areas of the
site that were visited, and the biosecurity proceduresfollowed.
• Non-disposable items
• At the end of the visit, remove any non-disposable boots/coveralls and, where
appropriate, clean and disinfect on-site using decontamination procedures (2.4).
• If non-disposable items are not cleaned and disinfected on-site, place them in the
"dirty" area of the vehicle in a manner that minimizes contamination of the vehicle
to be cleaned and disinfected later. For example, place "dirty" items together in a
covered plastictub.
• Disposable items
• Place all soiled disposable items in plastic garbage bags and close securely.
• If the outside of the garbage bag became contaminated, wash it off and
decontaminate the outside of the bag according to decontamination procedures
(2.4).
• If acceptable to the owner/operator, leave the plastic bag with soiled disposable
items on-site fordisposal.
• If it is not possible to leave the bag on-site, ensure the bag is closed securely, double
bag it, and place it in the "dirty" area of the vehicle.
• If the vehicle or tires became contaminated with dirt, urine, blood, wastewater, or
manure, wash and disinfect vehicle tires and wheel wells at a location on-site
designated by the owner/operator if possible.
• If it is not possible to wash and disinfect the vehicle or tires completely on-site, take
the vehicle to a car wash before taking the vehicle to another facility. Record when
and where the car was washed in the vehicle logbook.
• Wash your hands with soap and potable water or use antibacterial wipes or gel
before leaving the site.
PROCEDURES FOR THE END OF THE DAY
EPA personnel should follow the procedures below after all visits to livestock or poultry
facilities have been completed for the day.
• If it was not possible to leave used, disposable items at the facility where they were
used, return the double bagged garbage bag to the pre-selected location for disposal
(i.e., EPA or state agency facility) or other location identified through consultation
with appropriate Health and Safety staff.
• While it is highly unlikely that any medical or hazardouswastes would be created, if
these types of wastes were created, EPA personnel should follow prearranged
procedures for handling, storage and disposal (see section2.4.3.1).
• Clean/launder all reusable clothing in hot water with a disinfectant soap.
Appendix AF - Page 756
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Clean and disinfect equipment according to decontamination procedures.
• Take a shower.
• Check and replenish supplies as necessary to ensure all needed supplies are readyfor
the next visit.
Appendix AF - Page 757
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AG -
Field and Personal Protective Equipment
Appendix AG - Page 758
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
FIELD AND PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
Table AG-1 presents a quick reference guide to field and personal protection equipment (PPE)
that should be considered, as appropriate, for inspections and sampling events.
Table AG-1. List of Field and PPE Equipment
Field Equipment
Documents and Recordkeeping Tools
Protective Clothing1
• Credentials
• Bump hat
• Facility File
• Disposable boot covers
• Inspection Checklists
• Hearing protection
• Log book
• Safety shoes (waterproof)
• Field notebook
• Disposable gloves
• Shipping labels
• Protective suit
• Analysis request forms
• Reflective safety vest
• Waterproof pen
• Safety glasses/goggles
• Calculator
• Rainwear
• QAPP & Sampling plan
• Climate-appropriate outerwear
• Copy of Permit
• Change of clothes
• Previous Inspection Report
• Extra Inspection Checklists
• Compliance Assistance Materials
(Factsheets, BMP guidance)
Sampling Materials
Safety Equipment1 /Miscellaneous
• Prepackaged sampling kit, if available
• First-aid kit
• Sample containers, including extras
• Extra batteries
• Batteries/extension cords
• Sunscreen
• Sample bottle labels/sample seals
• Insect repellant
• Plastic security tape
• Paper mask
• Chain-of-custody forms
• Backpack
• Dissolved oxygen meters
• Clip board
• pH meter
• Water/Fluids
• Deionized water
• Sun hat
• Chart paper
• Binoculars
• Thermometer
• Road Map
• Coolers/ice
• Emergency contact information
• Preservatives
• Directions to laboratory
• Shipping labels
Sample Transportation Materials
Tools
• Bubble pack material
• Multi-tooled jack knife (Swiss Army type)
• Filament tape
• Electrical and duct tape
• Air bill/bill of lading
• Tape measure
Appendix AG - Page 759
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Field Equipment
Flow Measurement Devices
• Measurement devices (e.g., flumes, weirs,
portable ultrasound or bubble systems)
• Flow discharge tables
• Level
• Ruler
• Stopwatch or watch with second hand
• Hand-held range finder and level
• Digital camera and extra memory card
• Flashlight
• Screwdriver
• Adjustable wrench and vise grips
• Bucket (plastic or stainless steel, as
appropriate)
• Nylon cord
• GPS
• Laptop computer
• Cell phone and charger
• Navigation systems
• Pens/pencils
• Extra paper
• Portable scanner
Biosecurity - Clothing, PPE
• Plastic coveralls (disposable outerwear) or
cloth coveralls
• Standard steel-toed safety boots with
disposable boot covers
• Disposable gloves (e.g., nitrile, or vinyl)
• Hair nets
• Filtering face piece (respiratory protection
beyond this is not anticipated but if
necessary, would require additional
supplies and procedures)
• Safety glasses with impact protection
• Hardhats
Biosecurity - Supplies
• Water container(s) for potable water
• EPA-approved disinfectant and relevant
safety data sheets (SDS)
• Spray bottle for disinfecting small items
• Pump sprayer for disinfecting large items
• Long-handled brush
• Trash bags and zip-lock bags
• Paper towels
• EPA-approved soap or antibacterial wipes
or products
• Bucket
• Duct tape to secure plastic boot covers,
coveralls, etc.
• Waste containers for storing disinfectant
rinsate, other liquid waste
• Plastic tub for storing "dirty" equipment
and PPE in the vehicle
• Insect repellant
• First aid kit, including tick removal tool
1 List of Protective Clothing and Safety Equipment is not limited to only Sampling Inspections.
Appendix AG - Page 760
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AH -
Mapping Tool (Region 5)
Appendix AH - Page 761
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
U.S. EPA REGION 5 FACILITY MAPPING PROTOCOL
AND WEATHER DATA SOURCES
When provided with a name and address, look up the coordinates of a facility using
Terraserver. Latitude/longitude can also be found with Google Earth.
Create an ArcMap project that has these layers:
• NAIP (National Agriculture Imagery Program)
• NHD Flowlines (National Hydrography Dataset)
• DRG (Digital Raster Graphic)
• Bing Maps Aerial Hybrid Layer
• 303d and 305b (Impaired and Assessed Waters)
• County Street Map or other roads layer
• Existing universe of CAFOs shapefile (It helps to have this layer on to make sure a
new facility hasn't already been mapped).
Zoom to the coordinates of the facility.
If a facility does not have a waterway flowing through it, use the distance tool and the DRG to
measure the distance to the nearest NHD line following drainage contours on the DRG. If the
first NHD line is categorized as "Intermittent", highlight the stretch of waterway path in the
NHD layer until it gets to a perennial stream. From those selected stream reach portions, the
length (in kilometers) can be summed in the attribute table. Multiply the summed length by
0.62 to get the length in miles to the perennial waterway. Note the direction of the flow off the
facility and the distances.
Also make note of the county, impairments and reasons for impairments (if impaired), whether
the waterway has been assessed, the road or intersection, and location of nearest town.
Make two maps for each facility, one is zoomed out and one is zoomed in.
The zoomed out map shows enough detail to identify the facility in relation to the closest
perennial waterway. Aerial imagery is the background and NHD, 303d and/or 305b are
displayed. The facility is identified with a callout box. In the callout box, the flow direction off
the facility and distances (to intermittent and perennial) are listed. The title of the map has the
facility name and address (if known), the county, the latitude/longitude, and any other location
information to help one find the facility when out on the road.
The zoomed in map is zoomed in enough to only display the facility. The callout box is left on
this map, but moved to where it is not covering any facility structures. This map is the one that
can be used during the inspection to identify the name of each structure, etc.
Appendix AH - Page 762
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Rainfall Frequency Tables. Average Annual Rainfall, and Historic Climate Data
Updated 06/18/13
** Some of these links work better with a browser other than Internet Explorer **
Rainfall Frequency
For a given "Rainfall Event", like a 5 year / 2-hour storm, there is a certain amount of rain that
would need to fall in that timeframe to be considered a storm of that magnitude.
These rainfall amounts are dependent on where in the country you are located.
There are tables created by NOAA for listing the precipitation frequencies for each state. The
document that contains these tables is called NOAA Atlas 14. It was created in 2004 and revised
in 2006. There are different volumes of the Atlas for different states. If you want to view the pdf
of the atlas for your state, use this link: http://www.weather.gov/oh/hdsc/currentpf.htm
You can use the NOAA Atlas 14 document directly, but it is much easier to use the Precipitation
Frequency Data Server. NOAA's Precipitation Frequency Data Server gives output based on the
NOAA Atlas for Precipitation Frequency. This is the link for the Precipitation Frequency Data
Server: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/index.html
When you open the webpage, leave the default settings for DATA DESCRIPTION. Click on the
map in the desired state, and then move the red crosshair to the observation site (or anywhere
on the map), scroll to the bottom of the webpage and the server will give you a table for the
different rainfall events.
Average Rainfall and Climate Normals
Climate normals are the averages in weather parameters. They were recently updated. The
climate normals are calculated on a 30-year average and are updated every 10 years. The new
normals, which use the climate data from 1981-2010, were released on July 1, 2011 by the
National Climate Data Center.
The NOAA site to get this data is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/land-based-station-data/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data
First choose whether you want Monthly, Daily or Annual/Seasonal Normals. Then choose the
state and city of interest.
(You can also access the old 1971-2000 Normals by clicking on the link on the front page. If you
want the Daily Normals, click on the Daily Station Normals 1971-2000 (CLIM84) product and
search by your location. If you want monthly and annual normals, click on the Monthly Station
Normals 1971-2000 (CLIM81) product and find your location.)
Historic Climate Data
Historic climate data beginning the week of April 9, 2012, this data is now free.
Appendix AH - Page 763
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
For historic climate data, including rainfall, snowfall, and temperature use NOAA's National
Centers for Environmental Information. There is a lag of time between the actual date in
question and the date that the information is posted on NCEI. This is due to the quality control
checks that NCEI performs on the data. NCEI's main website is:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
To access climate data, go to the website link, above. Once at this website, on the blue banner
on the top, click on the Data Access link and then on the Quick Links link. The 23 sections have
links for different publications/information. Some of the more popular items one would need
are listed below.
Weather Data for One Day or One Month for One Location
In Section 1: "U.S. Local Climatological Data" click on the first link "Quality Controlled Local
Climatological Data (QCLCD). Once you click on the "Quality Controlled Local Climatological
Data" link, choose the state that you want data for and press Continue. Then Select Desired
Station from the choices in the menu. These usually relate to airports, public works offices, or
larger cities.
Then choose the desired Year and Month. The next page will allow you to choose one day in
that month or choose "E" for the entire month. You also have the option to switch from Daily to
Hourly Product.
Note the links in Section 1 for data older than 2005.
Weather Data for the Month or Year for One State
In Section 6: "Climatological Data Publication" you can get the Monthly or Annual reports for
one state. After deciding if you need the Individual Monthly Issue or the Individual Annual
Issue, follow the menu prompts for your state of interest to get the climate summary from all
reporting stations in that state. The next page that comes up will contain a link to the pdf of
that report. Click on the link and save the pdf to your computer, renaming it if you desire.
If you are interested in only one site in the Annual Report, you need to first find what division
number is associated with your site. One of the last pages will have a map of the state broken
up into numbered divisions. Find out which division your site is located in. From the beginning
of the report, scroll through the pages until you see a heading for that division. Choose one of
the reporting stations within that division.
In the Annual Report, there will be sections for monthly information for:
• Total Precipitation and Departures from Normal
• Average Temperatures and Departures from Normal
• Temperature Extremes and Freeze Data
• Monthly and Seasonal Cooling Degree Days
• Soil Temperatures
• Total Pan Evaporation and Wind Movement (not usually complete for all stations)
Appendix AH - Page 764
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena
In Section 5, you can get reports by month of severe storm events. The reports have all the
states listed and the state data is broken up by region (Central, Northwest, etc.) and county. It
will list the date of the event, time, damage done to property and crops and the character of
the storm.
Hourly Precipitation Data
In Section 7, you can get a statewide listing by month of the hourly precipitation reports.
Weather Data from National Weather Service
For recent weather that has not been archived, like within the past few months, there are
numerous web-sites that make this available. Realize that the weather data is not "official" until
it has been quality control checked by NCDC, though.
One website that you can use is the National Weather Service, http://www.weather.gov/
Click on the map in the location you are interested in and the website will navigate to the page
of the Weather Forecast Office for that area. On the left hand side of the page will be a link for
the Local Climate. Clicking on that link brings you to a page that gives you a choice of products,
a location and the timeframe of the weather data you want.
The first product, the Daily Climate Report, is what you would use to see the temperature,
precipitation, and other weather conditions on that one day. There are other products that may
be of better use, depending on what you are looking for.
The locations offered on this page are the locations that are certified by the National Weather
Service. You may not be able to get all products for all the locations.
Appendix AH - Page 765
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AI -
Sample Permitted CAFO Inspection Checklist
Appendix AI - Page 766
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SAMPLE PERMITTED CAFO INSPECTION CHECKLIST
PERMITTED CAFO SITE INSPECTION FORM
GENERAL INFORMATION:
NPDES Permit No.:
NPDES Permit Expiration Date: / /
Facility ID #
Inspector
Facility Name
Date
Facility Owner
Time in
Time out
Facility Operator
Weather
Mailing Address
GPS Reading (at gate)
North
Physical Address
33West
County
Section
Contact Person
Range
Does the facility owner/operator own and/or
operate any other animal feeding
operations? Y or N
If yes provide name(s) and address(es) and
indicate whether the facility is an AFO or a
CAFO
Phone
(office) (cell)
(fax)
E-mail
Persons Present During Inspection
33 Longitude reading should be a negative number (i.e., -105.2356).
Appendix Al- Page 767
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Max. Animals Confined per
Month
Max. Capacity of
Location and name of nearest surface water34
and description of flow path
Faci
Pern
itv
riitted Capacity of Facility
Number of animals today
area):
(all animals in production
# confined
# confined
Cattle
Sheep
Dairy mature
Dairy heifers
Swine (>55#)
Swine (<55#)
Turkeys
Laying hens
Other chickens
Other (specify)
~
Presented credentials? (check if yes)
~
Aerial image attached? (check if yes) Source and date:
~
Inspection photos attached? (check if yes)
~
Potential compliance issues? (check if yes and summarize below)
34 Surface water means all waters of the United States.
Appendix Al- Page 768
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NSPECTION OBSERVATIONS:
Production Area
1. List impoundments (attach additional sheet(s), if needed)
Impoundment
ID
Wastewater
Type
Wastewater
Source(s)
Pumping
level35
(from
staff
gauge)
Wastewater
below
pumping
level?
Max.
recorded
level
~ process
generated
~ runoff
Y or N
~ process
generated
~ runoff
Y or N
~ process
generated
~ runoff
Y or N
~ process
generated
~ runoff
Y or N
~ process
generated
~ runoff
Y or N
~ process
generated
~ runoff
Y or N
YN n/a
Y N n/a
Y N n/a
Y N n/a
YN n/a
Y N n/a
Impoundment(s) collect all runoff from:
Animal confinement areas?36
Manure storage areas?37
Raw material storage areas?38
Waste containment areas?39
Egg washing or egg processing facility?
Mortality storage, handling, treatment or disposal area?
35 The pumping level represents the minimum capacity necessary to contain runoff and direct precipitation from
the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event (40 CFR Part 412.37(a)(2)).
36 Animal confinement area includes but is not limited to open lots, housed lots, feedlots, confinement houses,
stall barns, free stall barns, milkrooms, milking centers, cowyards, barnyards, medication pens, walkers, animal
walkways, and stables (40 CFR Part 122.23(b)(8)).
37 Manure storage area includes but is not limited to lagoons, runoff ponds, storage sheds, stockpiles, under house
or pit storages, liquid impoundments, static piles, and composting piles (40 CFR Part 122.23(b)(8)).
38 Raw materials storage area includes but is not limited to feed silos, silage bunkers, and bedding materials (40
CFR Part 122.23(b)(8)).
39 The waste containment area includes but is not limited to settling basins, and areas within berms and diversions
which separate uncontaminated storm water (40 CFR Part 122.23(b)(8)).
Appendix Al- Page 769
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
YN n/a
Other? (describe):
• If no, describe non-retained areas:
Y N n/a
3.
Was manure or wastewater observed in a waterway? If yes, describe:
Y N n/a
4.
Adequate storage available for manure, litter, and process wastewater, and
procedures are in place to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage
facilities? [Part 122.42(e)(l)(i)]
1
Y N n/a
5.
Confined animals do not have direct contact with waters of the United States? [Part
122.42(e)(l)(iv)]
Y N n/a
6.
Clean water is diverted from the production area? [Part 122.42(e)(l)(iii)]
Production Area (continued)
YN n/a
7.
Chemicals and other contaminants handled on-site are not disposed of in any
manure, litter, process wastewater, or storm water storage or treatment system?
[Part 122.42(e)(l)(v)]
Additional Production Area Requirements for Large Dairy Cow, Cattle, Swine, Poultry, and Veal Calf
CAFOs (Subparts C and D)
YN n/a
8.
All open surface impoundments and terminal storage tanks have depth markers
which clearly indicate the minimum capacity necessary to contain the runoff and
direct precipitation of the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event? [Part 412.37(a)(2)]
Appendix Al- Page 770
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Y N n/a 9. Mortalities remain on the production area until disposal, are not disposed in liquid
manure or process wastewater treatment systems, and are handled to prevent
discharge of pollutants to surface waters? [Part 412.37(a)(4)]
Production area comments:
Land Application Sites
Y N n/a 10. Does the facility apply manure or wastewater to land owned by or under the
operational control of the CAFO?
• Number of land application sites:
• Irrigation type(s):
• Furrow/flood irrigation sites - what is fate of applied wastewater and tailwater?
Y N n/a 11. Was manure/wastewater applied in accordance with the procedures and protocols
identified in the NMP? (spot check records for one for one field to complete the
information below.)
If no, describe:
Field ID:
Acreage:
P Index:
Calculations based
on:
~ n or Dp
Calculated*
App
ied
Gal. or Tons
(specify)
Lbs. N or P
Gal. or Tons
(specify)
Lbs. N or P
Rates of
application:
Liquid
Slurry
Solid
Total Lbs. N or P that may be applied and that
were applied:
*lf rates are calculated for more than one form, are the rates Q additive (e.g. slurry and solid) or
I | exclusive (e.g., slurry or solid)?
Appendix Al- Page 771
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
***Copy record(s) including rate calculations, land application records and any other relevant
documentation.***
Land application site comments:
Land application site comments (continued):
Monitoring, Documentation and Recordkeeping
Does the facility maintain records of the following for 5 years?
Y N n/a 12. The completed permit application? [Part 412.37(b)]
Y N n/a 13. The current design of manure storage structures, including volume of solids
accumulation, design treatment volume, total design volume, and approximate
number of days of storage capacity? [Part 412.37(b)(5)]
Y N n/a 14. The date, time, and estimated volume of any overflow? [Part 412.37(b)(6)]
Y N n/a 15. Manure and process wastewater transfers, including the most current nutrient
analysis of the manure or wastewater that was provided to the recipient, the date
and approximate amount transferred, and the name and address of the recipient?
[Part 122.42(e)(3)]
Y N n/a a. Name of recipient
Y N n/a b. Address of recipient
Y N n/a c. Date of transfer
Y N n/a d. Approximate amount transferred (tons/gallons)
Y N n/a e. Recent (12 months or less) manure nutrient analysis provided
Additional Production Area Records for Large Dairy Cow, Cattle, Swine, Poultry, and Veal CalfCAFOs
16. Documentation of daily and weekly visual inspections of the production area,
including:
Y N n/a a. Weekly inspection of stormwater diversions, waste storage structures, and
process wastewater channeling devices? [Part 412.37(b)(1)]
Y N n/a b. Daily inspection of water lines? [Part 412.37(b)(1)]
Y N n/a c. Weekly inspection of impoundments and tanks? [Part 412.37(b)(1)]
Y N n/a 17. Weekly records of the depth of manure and process wastewater in liquid
impoundments and terminal tanks? [Part 412.37(b)(2)]
Y N n/a 18. Documentation of actions taken to correct deficiencies found as a result of
production area inspections? [Part 412.37(b)(3)]
Appendix Al- Page 772
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Y N n/a 19. Documentation of mortalities management? [Part 412.37(b)(4)]
Land Application Area Records for Large Dairy Cow, Cattle, Swine, Poultry, and Veal CalfCAFOs
YNn/a 20. Expected crop yields? [Part 412.37(c)(1)]
Y N n/a 21. Date(s) manure or process wastewater is applied to each land application site? [Part
412.37(c)(2)]
Y N n/a 22. Weather conditions at the time of, and for 24 hours prior to and following, land
application? [Part 412.37(c)(3)]
Y N n/a 23. Test methods used to sample and analyze manure, process wastewater, and soil?
[Part 412.37(c)(4)]
Y N n/a 24. Results from manure, process wastewater, and soil analyses? [Part 412.37(c)(5)]
Y N n/a 25. Manure and process wastewater application rates determined in accordance with the
technical standards? [Part 412.37(c)(6)]
Y N n/a 26. Calculations showing the total N and P to be applied to each land application site,
including sources other than manure or process wastewater? [Part 412.37(c)(7)]
Y N n/a 27. Total amount of N and P actually applied to each land application site, including
calculations? [Part 412.37(c)(8)]
Y N n/a 28. Method used to apply manure and process wastewater? [Part 412.37(c)(9)]
Y N n/a 29. Date(s) of manure application equipment inspections for leaks? [Part 412.37(c)(10)]
Monitoring, Documentation and Recordkeeping comments:
Appendix Al- Page 773
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Nutrient Management Plan (NMP)
Required NMP Element [Part 122.42(e)(1)]
YN n/a
30.
Is the facility's NMP available on-site? Does it reflect the current operational
characteristics and practices? [Part 122.42(e)(2)(ii)]
Date developed or last revised:
YN n/a
31.
Ensure adequate storage of manure and process wastewater, including
operation and maintenance procedures.
YN n/a
32.
Ensure proper management of animal mortalities.
YN n/a
33.
Ensure that clean water is diverted, as appropriate, from the production area.
YN n/a
34.
Prevent direct contact of confined animals with surface waters.
YN n/a
35.
Ensure proper disposal of chemicals and other contaminants.
YN n/a
36.
Identify site-specific conservation practices to control runoff of pollutants
YN n/a
37.
Identify protocols for manure, process wastewater, and soil sampling and
testing.
YN n/a
38.
Establish protocols to land apply manure or process wastewater in accordance
with site-specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate
agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter, or process
wastewater.
YN n/a
39.
Identify specific records that will be maintained to document the
implementation and management of the minimum NMP elements (#36-#43
above).
Additional NMP Requirements for Large Dairy Cow, Cattle, Swine, Poultry, and Veal CalfCAFOs
YN n/a
40.
Application rates are calculated as required by Part 412.4(c)(2)
YN n/a
41.
Specifies the manure, process wastewater, and soil sampling at the required
frequencies and for the required parameters? [Part 412.4(c)(3)]
(manure/wastewater annually for P & N, soils at least every 5 years for
phosphorus transport)
YN n/a
42.
Includes periodic inspection of land application equipment? [Part 412.4(c)(4)]
Appendix Al- Page 774
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Y N n/a 43. Includes 100-foot setback, 35-foot vegetated buffer, or approved alternative?
[Part 412.4(c)(5)]
Where applicable, identify each field and setback type:
Field ID
Setback Type
OVERALL COMMENTS:
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Appendix Al- Page 775
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix Al- Page 776
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
FACILITY MAP
Appendix Al- Page 111
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
PHOTOS
Photo
No.
Description
Appendix Al- Page 778
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Inspector:
Date:
Date Inspection Report was Finalized:
Date Report was Sent to Facility:
Appendix Al- Page 779
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AJ -
Regional Inspections Checklists
Appendix AJ - Page 780
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
REGIONAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST
PROGRAM YEAR 2011
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
LIVESTOCK/POULTRY FIELD FORCES
AFO/CAFO INSPECTIONS
\s
D 5 CI
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Inspector's Name:
Inspector's Number:
GDA Est #:
Landowner's Name:
Date:
Landowner's Mailing Address:
County:
City:
State:
Zip:
Phone#:
Farm Name:
Person Permit Issued to:
Farm Physical Address:
City:
Zip:
County:
Phone#:
Landowner's E-mail:
Operator's E-mail:
Certified Animal Feeding Operator:
Certification #:
Operator's Mailing Address:
Copy of Certificate on-site:
~
Yes ~
# Hours of Continuing Education Last Year:
Documentation for Continuing Education provided to GDA:
~ Yes ~ *No
Comments:
RECORDS:
NPDES Permit#
Copy of Permit on-site
~Yes ~ *No
Has Permit been extended:
~ Yes ~ *No
Copy of Permit Extension on-Site:
~ Yes ~ *No
NPDES Annual Report Submitted letter on-site:
~
Yes
~ *No
Date Submitted:
Size and Type of Operation:
~ Swine ~ Dairy ~ Commercial Layer
Does this CAFO have an approved NMP?
~ Yes ~ *No ~ Pending (only if NMP is submitted)
Date of NMP approval by EPD:
Copy of approved NMP on-site:
~ Yes ~ *No
Has farm completed an annual assessment of NMP?
~ Yes ~ *No
Appendix AJ - Page 781
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If "yes" list changes that have been made to the operation since last inspection?
Are Daily Rain Records on-Site: ~ Yes ~ *No
Weekly Log of Waste Water Impoundment Liquid Level on-Site? ~ Yes ~*No
Date of last recorded Liquid Level measurement: (NPDES weekly)
Are Records of Weekly Inspection & Maintenance of all manure storage & ~ Yes ~ *No
handling structures, and run off management on-site?
Liquid Application records on-site: QYes ~ *No
COMPLETE PAGE 2A - before continuing
Does it appear the farm is over applying in regards to their NMP? ~ Yes ~ *No
Does liquid application records contain field, acres, date, rate, crop, crop yield, duration of
irrigation, number of sprinklers, total volume applied, and total nitrogen applied? QYes ~ *No ~ * Partial
If farm has a solid separator how much is applied on the farm tons? ~ Not applicable
Does solid application records contain field, acres, date, rate, crop, crop yield, QYes ~ N/A
total volume applied, and total nitrogen applied, or total nitrogen per acre? ~ *No ~ ^Partial
Is Commercial Fertilizer applied to fields where any type of manure is applied? ~ Yes ~ No
If answer is "Yes" provide analysis of fertilizer and quantity applied per acre:
Does the approved NMP include commercial fertilizer in the nutient budget worksheet? QYes ~ *No
Any Rental/Lease agreements for manure/waste water applied off farm? ~ Yes ~ No ~ N/A
Are the agreements included in the NMP? ~ Yes ~ *No
Are all Application fields on map(s) included in NMP? ~ Yes ~ *No
What is the maximum liquid level in the NMP (measured downward from top of embankment):
Comments:
APPLICATION EQUIPMENT:
Specify Type of Liquid Manure Application Equipment:
Is Equipment? ~ Owned ~ Rented or Leased ~ Custom Applied
Appendix AJ - Page 782
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Date of last Calibration?
Attach Copy of Annual Calibration
Specify Type of Dry Manure Application Equipment:
~ N/A
Is Equipment? ~ Owned
~ Rented or Leased
~ Custom Applied
Date of last Calibration?
Attach Copy of Annual Calibration
Solids Separator:
~ Yes ~ No
Pad
Type:
Open Area
~ Under Shelter
Is storage pad area covered, bermed, curbed, and guttered, or buffered? Describe.
Are record available showing maintenance of application equipment?
~ Yes ~ *No
Comments:
SOIL/WASTE WATER/MANURE/MONITORING WELL TESTING:
Date, time, exact location, and name of person responsible for most recent manure and waste water sampling,
soil sampling, and monitoring well sampling.
Manure:
Testing
Waste Water:
Testing
Soil:
Testing
Monitoring Well:
Testing
Semiannual manure, separated solids, waste water analysis.
~ Yes Q*No
Records of annual soil sampling of each application field.
~ Yes Q*No
Does the annual soil sampling report include soil pH and soil test?
Phosphorus level measured by Mehlich-1 Extraction or Double Acid? ~ Yes ~ *No
Are Records on-site showing date, name, and address of recipients, quantity of manure and nutrient analysis of
manure transferred to others? ~ Yes ~ *No
~ *N/A
Comments:
MONITORING WELLS:
Are the monitoring wells shown on the NMP Maps? ~ Yes ~ *No
If no, has plan for installation of monitoring well been submitted? ~ Yes ~ *No
Does the facility have monitoring wells for each waste water system? ~ Yes ~ *No
Appendix AJ - Page 783
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Does the facility have a monitoring well down gradient of lagoon/storage pond? ~ Yes ~ *No
Does monitoring well records show Nitrate Nitrogen level greater than lOppm? ~ Yes ~ *No
What were the results for last year? (2) and dates taken. ~ Yes ~ *No
Describe any actions taken to reduce level of Nitrate Nitrogen.
Comments:
EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN:
Does this operation have an Emergency Action Plan? ~ Yes ~ *No
Is the plan included in the NMP? ~ Yes ~ *No
Are Emergency numbers posted for all employees to attain? ~ Yes ~ *No
Emergency Operations Center 24 Hour Spill Reporting should be contacted to report overflow and discharges in
cases where EPD District Office personnel are not available. Spill Reporting Telephone Number is
(800)241-4113
Comments:
ANIMAL MORTALITY:
Describe the animal mortality plan for this operation:
Has a soil investigation been conducted for the disposal site? If "no", give the date that investigation is to be
performed: ~ Yes ~ No
Does this facility have a catastrophic mortality disposal plan? ~ Yes ~ *No
Does facility have verification of approved burial site? ~ Yes ~ *No
Comments:
OUTSIDE INSPECTION
MEDICAL/CHEMICAL BY-PRODUCT DISPOSAL:
Does this operation have a disposal plan for disposing of medical and/or chemical waste and preventing
introduction into manure or wastewater except when used in accordance with the product label?
~ Yes ~ No
If "yes" briefly describe method?
Is there evidence of oil, petroleum based products, or chemical spills on-site? ~ Yes ~ No
Appendix AJ - Page 784
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Comments:
MONITORING WELL:
Are monitoring wells being maintained properly and kept free of grass, weeds, and animal burrows?
~ Yes ~ No
Are the monitoring wells installed in location on maps? ~ Yes ~ No*
Comments:
ANIMAL MORTALITY:
Does it appear that animal mortality disposal through observation meets current Department of
Agriculture Rules? ~ Yes ~ No
Comments:
DIVERSION OF CLEAN WATER:
Is storm water diverted from waste water impoundment? ~ Yes ~ No
If "yes", are the diversion provisions being properly implemented and maintained? ~ Yes ~ No
If "no", is the runoff being collected and is the storage volume of waste water
impoundment designed to contain the runoff? ~ Yes ~ No
Is runoff from open lots, holding pens, and loafing areas buffered or diverted into
the waste water storage system? ~ Yes ~ No
Are steps being taken to prevent water wastage? ~ Yes ~ No Is the facility recycling? ~ Yes ONo
Do livestock have access to surface waters on the farm while in confinement? ~ *Yes ~ No
Is all waste water diverted into the waste water impoundment?
(including hoof wash, parlor, holding areas, etc.). ~ Yes ~ *No
Comments:
WASTE WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE:
GPS: N W
Is embankment(s) grassed, free of erosion, rodent tunnels, cracks or other damage? ~ Yes ~ *No
If "no" describe:
Is embankment free of woody vegetation, briars, etc. ~ Yes ~ *No
Date of last brush and/or weed control (mowing, spraying, etc.) of the embankment:
Does waste water impoundment have a permanent depth marker with?
maximum liquid level indicated? ~ Yes Q*No
Estimated number of inches between liquid level and lowest point on top of berm/embankment/dam at the time
of inspection:
Is liquid level at time of inspection above or below maximum
liquid level stated in NMP? ~*Above QBelow
Is this waste water storage structure a zero discharge structure? ~ Yes ~ *No
Does it appear that the waste water storage structure has had a recent overflow? ~ *Yes ~ No
Appendix AJ - Page 785
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If "yes", was the overflow the result of a chronic or catastrophic event?
~ Yes
~ No
Describe the event; include date, time and estimated amount of volume:
If overflow resulted in a discharge, give test results of the BODS and TSS levels:
Liquid level before overflow:
Liquid level after overflow:
If, for any reason, there is a discharge of pollutants to a water of the US, the permittee is required to make
immediate oral notification within 24-hours to the local Division District Office (or, if after office hours, the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Emergency Operations Center, 1-800 -241-4113) and notify the
Division District Office in writing within five (5) working days of the discharge from the facility.
Comments:
APPICATION EQUIPMENT & LAND APPICATION SITE:
Is Liquid Manure Application Equipment?
~ Owned
~ Rented/Leased ~ Custom
Is Dry Manure Application Equipment?
~ Owned
~ Rented/Leased ~ Custom
Is there a vegetated buffer between the application fields and down?
gradient surface waters, sinkholes, open tile line intake structures, etc.?
~ Yes ~ No
Estimated width of the vegetated buffer in feet:
Are ditches, grassed waterways, terraces, diversions, swales or other water conveyance in the application
fields? ~ Yes ~ No
Is land application of manure/waste water is being applied at agronomic rates?
~ Yes ~ No
Is there evidence of improper land application of manure and/or waste water in wet zones, such as wetlands,
drainage ditches, flooded areas, applying during a rainfall event, on frozen field, or runoff entering streams?
~ Yes ~ No
If "yes" describe:
Comments:
Appendix AJ - Page 786
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The Georgia Department of Agriculture's review of the animal feeding operation does not relieve the
operator from adherence to provisions and requirements contained in the Land Application System (LAS)
or National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued for the feeding operation or to
rules and regulations issued by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) and/or US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Any violation identified on this inspection report must be addressed immediately and a completion date
agreed to by the producer. Any violation that results in a discharge or damage to the "Waters of the State"
will be reported immediately to the Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division.
Re-inspection Date: (If Needed)
Farm Representative/Title Date
GDA Representative
Inspection was reviewed for completeness and adequacy by: Date
Inspection was reviewed for completeness and adequacy by:_
Date :
Inspection should have 2-A, Calibration Documentation and Inspection Summary attached.
Contacts:
Environmental Management District Offices:
Mountain District
(Cartersville)
West Central District (Macon)
Costal District (Brunswick)
Southwest District (Albany)
Northwest District (Athens)
Northeast District (Augusta)
Mountain District (Atlanta)
P.O. Box 3250, Cartersville, Ga 30120-1705
2640 Shurling Drive, Macon 31211-3576
400 Commerce Center Dr, Brunswick 31523-8251
2024 Newton Road, Albany 31701-3576
745 Gaines School Rd, Athens 30605-3129
1885-A Tobacco Road, Augusta 30906-8825
4244 International Parkway St 101, Atlanta, Ga 30354
A copy of this Report was mailed or e-mailed to the
District Office of EPD by
on (date)
(770) 387-4900
(478)751-6612
(912)264-7284
229)430-4144
706)369-6376
706) 792-7744
404)362-2671
Appendix AJ - Page 787
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A. GENERAL INFORMATION (Shaded boxes are for inspector to fill in independently)
FACILITY NAME (LLC, Inc., Corp, Partnership, sole
proprietorship, etc. If facility representative is unsure look
under the Secretary of State's website to see if it is listed.)
INSP CTION DATE
ARRIVAL TIME
ADDRESS
NSPECTOR(s)
INITIALS
DEPARTURE
TIME
CITY STATE
ZIP CODE
STATE INSPECTOR (if present)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (latitude and longitude)
COUNTY
TEMPERATURE
PRECIPITATION
TYPE
Facility
Owner(s) (Ask
for formal name
and obtain a
business card,
letter head or
other
documentation)
NAME
PHONE
NAME
PHONE
Facility
Operators
(If different than
the owner)
NAME
PHONE
NAME
PHONE
Is the Animal
Facility a CAFO?
YES NO
CAFO Classification?
(Medium or Large?)
CAFO Designation
Date
(If a designated
CAFO)
Designation Reason (If a designated
CAFO)
TYPE OF
OPERATION
(Circle all that
apply)
BEEF CATTLE
NUMBER OF ANIMALS OF EACH TYPE
(Present at time of inspection)
CAPACITY
TYPE OF CONFINEMENT
(Open Lot, Partial or Total
Confinement, Pasture)
Appendix AJ - Page 788
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DAIRY (Mature
and Dry)
SWINE
HEIFERS/CALVES
TURKEYS
CHICKENS
OTHER
1.
What number of animals are stabled/confined and feed/maintained for 45 days
or more during a twelve-month period?
Get documentation (computer records, daily records) for the past year that
provides the number of animals on facility each month.
2,
What are the minimum number of animals that you have had at this facility since
the date of operation
3.
What are the maximum number of animals that you have had at this facility since
the date of operation
4.
Do the animals have direct access to waters of the United States and/or its
tributaries?
YES
NO
5.
Does the facility have the ability to discharge livestock waste to waters of the US
via a manmade conveyance?
YES
NO
6.
Are any crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues sustained in
the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility where animals
are kept?
YES
NO
7.
What is the total area (acres) devoted to production? (Includes buildings, manure
storage areas, feedlots, chemical buildings, and offices. If a large facility this also
includes land application area. Not pasture.)
8.
What is the total area (acres) devoted to pasture?
9.
Is the facility currently operating under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit?
If yes, indicate NPDES ID.
YES
NO
10.
(ILLINOIS ONLY) Are you a Certified Livestock Manager (300 or greater
animal units)? (Should have a certificate that they were certified by the
Dept. of Agriculture.) (Ask to see it if they have one.)
N/A
YES
NO
11.
(ILLINOIS ONLY) If greater than 1000 animal units but less than 5000
animal units, a general waste management plan shall be prepared and
maintained on file at the facility. If this applies, is plan maintained at the
facility? (Ask to see it if they have one.)
N/A
YES
NO
12.
(ILLINOIS ONLY) If greater than 5000 animal units a waste management
plan must be prepared, maintained and submitted to the Dept. of
Agriculture. If this applies, did facility do this requirement? (Ask to see it
if they have one.)
N/A
YES
NO
Appendix AJ - Page 789
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
13.
Does the facility have a current NMP or CNMP? (Details gathered in Section G,
but facility representative may need to begin looking for it now)
YES
NO
14.
Does the facility have any other locations under common ownership, or where
equipment and/or manure is shared, or where the other site shares land
application sites? If so, put names and addresses below.
YES
NO
15.
Number of Employees (not counting immediate family members)?
B. MANURE, LITTER, AND PROCESSED WASTEWATER STORAGE TYPE
Type of Storage
Storage Capacity
Days of
Storage
Storage Lagoon
Holding Pond
Above Ground Storage Tanks
Below Ground Storage Tanks
Roofed Storage Shed
Concrete Pad
Impervious Soil Pad
Underflow Pits
Anaerobic Digester
Outdoor Piles
None
Other
C. LIVESTOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MORTALITIES
1.
Does the facility have any existing livestock waste management systems?
If yes, continue filling out Section C.
If no, then proceed to Section D.
YES
NO
2.
Provide a detailed description of the waste management system. (Include structure types,
capacity and condition. Include solid and liquid manure handling, and mortality.)
3.
Does the system have a managed outfall or discharge point?
YES
NO
If Yes, please provide a detailed description. (Riser pipe, spill way, etc. Include a description the area
receiving the discharge.)
4.
Are there any portions of the production area where runoff is not controlled?
YES
NO
If Yes, provide a detailed description of the area(s) of concern:
5.
Who designed the storage structures?
6.
Did you receive help from any organization (like NRCS) in the design of the storage structure? If
so, who?
7.
In what year were the storage structures constructed?
8.
Does the facility have the As-Built for the storage structures? (Ask to see them and note sizes of
ponds/lagoons in gallons.)
9.
What type of lining is used for the storage structures? (Example: clay, concrete, plastic, etc.
10.
Do the storage structures have depth markers or staff gauges?
YES
NO
11.
Are levels of manure in the storage structures recorded and records kept?
(If YES, ask to see records. Photograph them or get copies.)
YES
NO
Appendix AJ - Page 790
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
12.
Total number of acres available for land application?
13.
When was the last time the storage structure was pumped down?
(If within the past two months, fill out section 1.)
13.
Are land application records kept?
(If YES, ask to see records. Photograph them or get copies.)
YES
NO
14.
Is manure transferred off-site to another party?
YES
NO
15.
Are records of manure transfers kept?
(If YES, ask to see records. Photograph them or get copies.)
YES
NO
16.
Do the facility personnel perform routine visual inspections of the production area?
YES
NO
17.
Are the routine visual inspections documented?
(If YES, ask to see records. Photograph them or get copies.)
YES
NO
18.
How are mortalities managed? (Composted, buried, burned, rendering service, other)
(Get name of rendering service if rendered.)
19.
Are mortalities documented and are records kept?
(If YES, ask to see records. Photograph them or get copies.)
YES
NO
Water Sources that Need to be Contained
20.
What type of method is used to provide drinking water for the animals? (Circle one)
Overflow waters
Tip Tanks
Nipple waters (if nipple waters are used for swine, is backflow prevention installed?)
Other (describe)
21.
How is the water for animals contained?
22.
Is a mist cooling system used?
YES
NO
If YES
describe how mist water is contained?
23.
Is this a dairy operation?
If yes, answer the following questions in this section.
If no, go on to the Bedding section.
YES
NO
24.
How many times per day are cows milked?
25.
Describe how non-contact cooling water (or also called plate-cooler water) is contained?
(Example: It is reused for drinking water for the animals.)
26.
Describe how the milking parlor is cleaned (hose or flush) and where the process wastewater
goes and how it is contained.
27.
Describe how the tank(s) are washed and where the process wastewater goes and how it is
contained.
28.
Describe where teat dip containers and waste barrels are located.
29.
Describe where the Copper Sulfate or Formaldehyde (for the foot baths) is located (both unused
and used).
Bedding
30.
Describe what type of bedding is used for the animals. (Is a different type of bedding used for
young animals?)
31.
Describe how bedding is collected and how often.
Appendix AJ - Page 791
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
32.
What is done with the used bedding? REUSED LAND APPLIED
Manure Collection
33.
How is manure collected? (Circle one)
Scraped: Automatically Manually
Scrape/Gravity (Scraped to middle or end of barn to a pipe that gravity feeds to storage
structure)
Scrape/Flush (Barns flushed with water after scraping)
Flush (Cleans out barns with clean or reused water)
Vacuum (Solids are separated by a vacuum before entering storage pond)
Other (Describe this)
34.
Amount of manure generated annually?
Liquids:
Solids:
35.
If manure collection system uses either clean or reused water to flush, describe where this water
comes from. (Storage pond, well water, city water, etc.)
36.
If manure collection system uses either clean or reused water to flush, describe where this water
goes
and how it is contained.
Manure Storage
37.
Is manure stored for the short term? (Daily haul, small pits/storage)
YES
NO
If YES, indicate for how long manure is stored for the short term.
How is the short term storage drained? GRAVITY AUTOMATICALLY PLUG
If Automatically, is there a backup power system in place?
YES
NO
If YES, describe the backup power system.
38.
Where is manure stored for long term and for how long (Also asked in Section B)?
Concrete pit under floor (how long stored here?)
Concrete storage structure outdoors
Earthen storage structure outdoors
Slurry storage structure
Other (Describe this)
Appendix AJ - Page 792
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Safety
1.
Are there barriers guarding the end of any manure push-off platforms?
YES
NO
2.
Is there fencing around earthen manure storage structures?
YES
NO
3.
Are facility personnel trained for safety with large farm animals and safe work
practices?
YES
NO
4.
Are facility personnel trained in skid steer operations?
YES
NO
5.
Are facility personnel trained in tractor operations?
YES
NO
6.
Are facility personnel trained in or kept out of confined spaces?
YES
NO
7.
Are facility personnel trained in safety procedures during the maintenance of
equipment?
YES
NO
8.
Are belts, pulleys, chains and sprocket guards intact on farm machinery?
YES
NO
9.
Are MSDSs maintained on-site for all chemicals used on the facility?
YES
NO
10.
Does farm equipment have roll over protective devices (ROPS)
YES
NO
11.
Have facility personnel been trained in hazard communications?
YES
NO
Feed Storage Containment
38.
Describe how feed is contained, including type of storage structure, capacity and type of feed.
39.
Describe how feed runoff is contained.
D. RECEIVING SURFACE WATERS
1.
Provide a detailed description of the flow path from the facility to the nearest named surface
water. (Include detailed descriptions of all unnamed tributaries, ditches, and/or other flow paths
i.e., depth, width, color, odor, slope, amount of water present, soil type, erosivity, etc. Ask for
ocal name of ditches/streams.)
2.
Are there any man-made features not associated with the production area that can
affect runoff?
YES
NO
Appendix AJ - Page 793
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If Yes, provide a detailed description.
3.
Are there any storm water pathways entering the facility?
YES
NO
4.
Are there any clean water/storm water ponds on-site?
YES
NO
5.
What is the name of the receiving stream and the names of next streams or rivers in f
ow path?
6.
How many months out of the year does the receiving stream/ditch have flow in it?
7.
What is the name of the first navigable water?
8.
Status of the named surface water? Intermittent Perennial
What was the State's designation for this Surface water? (if-applicable)
Is this surface water or subsequent tributary listed as an impaired water on the current
state 303(d) list?
YES
NO
If YES, what is the impairment?
E. DISCHARGES
1.
What is the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall amount for this location?
You can find out this information from the Precipitation Frequency Data Server:
http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/index.html
2.
Have there been any documented discharges of livestock waste to surface water in
the past year?
If YES, answer parts a - i below. If NO, go to part F.
YES
NO
a.
Specify the date(s).
b
What was the reason for the discharge?
c.
What was the duration?
d
What was the volume?
e
Was the discharge the result of a 25 year, 24-hour rainfall event?
YES
NO
f.
What was the precipitation amount? (if applicable)
g-
Were EPA and/or the State notified?
YES
NO
Appendix AJ - Page 794
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
h. Provide a detailed description of the flow pathway and the area(s) receiving the discharge(s).
(include Photographs)
i. Has the facility taken corrective action to remedy the situation which caused the
discharge(s)?
YES
NO
If YES, describe actions taken:
3.
Is the facility currently discharging livestock waste from the production area?
(This can be seen during the walk-through of the facility.)
YES
NO
What is the reason for the discharge?
4.
Is the discharge the result of a 25 year, 24-hour rainfall event?
YES
NO
5.
What was the precipitation amount immediately before this discharge? (if applicable)
6.
Was a sample taken? If YES, then fill out Section G.
YES
NO
Provide a detailed description of the flow pathway and the area(s) receiving the discharge(s).
F. NPDES PERMIT INFORMATION (If no NPDES Permit, skip this section)
1.
What type of NPDES permit has been issued? (Circle one.)
Individual NPDES Permit General NPDES Permit
NPDES#
2.
What date was the NPDES permit issued?
3.
What date does the NPDES permit expire?
4.
Is a copy of the NPDES permit onsite?
YES
NO
5.
Permitted number of animal units?
6.
Does the NPDES Permit contain a compliance schedule?
YES
NO
If YES, provide a detailed description of the requirements in the compliance schedule and their status.
7.
Have there been any changes made to the production area since the permit was
issued?
YES
NO
Appendix AJ - Page 795
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
If YES, provide a detailed description of those changes.
8.
Does each open surface liquid impoundment have an adequate depth marker (e.g.,
staff gauge)?
YES
NO
9.
Are liquid levels recorded in accordance with the NPDES permit?
YES
NO
10.
Is the facility maintaining adequate storage capacity in each manure or litter storage
structures?
YES
NO
11.
When storage capacity is not available, are all structures dewatered/emptied in
accordance with the NPDES permit?
YES
NO
12.
Are manure solids stored onsite in accordance with the NPDES permit?
YES
NO
13.
Is manure transferred off-site in accordance with the NPDES permit?
YES
NO
14.
Are records of off-site manure disposal being maintained in accordance with NPDES
permit?
YES
NO
15.
Is the facility performing routine visual inspections of the production area in
accordance with the NPDES Permit?
YES
NO
16.
Are the visual inspections documented?
YES
NO
17.
Are mortalities managed and disposed of in accordance with the NPDES Permit?
YES
NO
18.
Is mortality management documented?
YES
NO
19.
If you answered NO for any of the questions 6-18, then provide a detailed description of the
potential permit violation(s).
G. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (If no NMP, skip this section)
1.
Does the facility maintain a copy of the nutrient management plan (NMP) onsite?
YES
NO
2.
Date that the NMP (or CNMP) was developed?
3.
Date that the NMP (or CNMP) was last updated?
4.
Does the NMP reflect the current operational characteristics (number of animals,
cropping, etc.)?
YES
NO
5.
Are the numbers of acres owned/acres leased consistent with those in the NMP?
YES
NO
6.
Is manure and wastewater being applied in accordance with set-back/buffer
requirements of the NMP?
YES
NO
7.
Are all of the records identified in the NMP being maintained and kept current?
YES
NO
8.
Are records being maintained at the required frequency?
YES
NO
9.
Are records being maintained onsite for the period required by NMP and/or NPDES
permit?
YES
NO
Appendix AJ - Page 796
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
10.
Is the NMP adequately addressing the storage, handling and application of manure
and wastewater to prevent discharges to waters of the U.S.?
YES
NO
11.
If you answered NO for any of the questions 1-8, then provide a detailed description of the
potential permit violation(s) (optional).
H. SAMPLING
1.
Were samples taken during the inspection?
YES
NO
2.
Provide a detailed description of the sampling methods and protocols used, including
representative samples, background, holding times, and preservation techniques. (OK to
reference the QAPP.)
3.
Provide a detailed description of where the samples were collected. Include photos and maps of
sampling locations. (OK to reference the aerial photo, or logbook where notes on samples were
taken.)
4.
Provide a detailed description of the weather conditions at the time the sample was collected.
5.
Classify the odors present on-site and locations where malodorous conditions were present.
(Scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst thing you have ever smelled.)
1. LAND APPLICATION SITES
1.
Appendix AJ - Page 797
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
OTHER COMMENTS/NOTES
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED WITH THIS CHECKLIST
INSPECTORS SIGNATURE AND DATE
SIZE DESIGNATIONS BY ANIMAL TYPE
LARGE
DAIRY COWS (Mature, dry or milking)
700
CATTLE (Heifers, steers, bulls, and cow/calf pairs)
1,000
VEAL CALVES
1,000
SWINE (Greater than or equal to 55 pounds)
2,500
SWINE (Less than 55 pounds)
HORSES
10,000
500
Appendix AJ - Page 798
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SHEEP OR LAMBS
10,000
TURKEYS
55,000
LAYING HENS OR BROILERS (Liquid manure handling system)
30,000
LAYING HENS (Other than liquid manure handling system)
82,000
CHICKENS (Other than laying hens and other than liquid manure)
125,000
DUCKS (Liquid manure handling system)
5,000
DUCKS (Other than liquid manure handling system)
30,000
MEDIUM
DAIRY COWS (Mature, dry or milking)
200-699
CATTLE (Heifers, steers, bulls, and cow/calf pairs)
300-999
VEAL CALVES
300-999
SWINE (Greater than or equal to 55 pounds)
750-2,499
SWINE (Less than 55 pounds)
3,000-9,999
HORSES
150-499
SHEEP OR LAMBS
3,000-9,999
TURKEYS
16,000-54,999
LAYING HENS OR BROILERS (Liquid manure handling system)
9,000-29,999
LAYING HENS (Other than liquid manure handling system)
25,000-81,999
CHICKENS (Other than laying hens and other than liquid manure)
37,500-124,999
DUCKS (Liquid manure handling system)
1,500-4,999
DUCKS (Other than liquid manure handling system)
10,000-29,999
SMALL
DAIRY COWS (Mature, dry or milking)
<200
CATTLE (Heifers, steers, bulls, and cow/calf pairs)
<300
VEAL CALVES
<300
SWINE (Greater than or equal to 55 pounds)
<750
SWINE (Less than 55 pounds)
<3,000
HORSES
<150
SHEEP OR LAMBS
<3,000
TURKEYS
<16,000
LAYING HENS OR BROILERS (Liquid manure handling system)
<9,000
LAYING HENS (Other than liquid manure handling system)
<25,000
CHICKENS (Other than laying hens and other than liquid manure)
<37,500
DUCKS (Liquid manure handling system)
<1,500
DUCKS (Other than liquid manure handling system)
<10,000
Appendix AJ - Page 799
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AK -
Growth Stages of Common Field Crops
Appendix AK - Page 800
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
Tillering
Writer
dormancy
Feaktfi
tNlvtHvriT C* III INC lis
EXTENSION
Jointing
Headiog &
^ F lowering^
Baal
Zadoka
Wheat Source: University of Illinois - Extension
Corn Source: University of Illinois - Extension
GROWTH STAGES OF COMMON FIELD CROPS
UNIVERSITY Of ILLINOIS
EXTENSION
Appendix AK - Page 801
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
tNIVLRSm C* 11.UNCUS
EXTENSION
VE
VC
VI
V2
V3
HI
H3 RS RSI
Soybean Source: University of Illinois -
Extension
l.'WIVTRSrTY Of lUJMOli
EXTENSION
Sorghum Source: University of Illinois -
Extension
Appendix AK - Page 802
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Alfalfa Source: www.ag.ndsu.edu
Appendix AK - Page 803
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AL -
Inspection Introduction Letter
Appendix AL - Page 804
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual [ 2017
EXAMPLE INSPECTION INTRODUCTION LETTERS
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region
3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348
Linda S. Adams pjlone (9515 782-4130 • FAX (951) 781-6288 * TDD (951) 782-3221 Arnold Schwarzenegger
Secretary/or www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana Governor
Environmental Protection
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL
FEEDING OPERATIONS (DAIRIES AND RELATED FACILITIES) WITHIN THE
SANTA ANA REGION
August 9, 2007
Dear Dairy Operator;
This letter provides formal notification of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board's (Regional Board) intent to conduct an inspection of your facility.
working under contract with the Regional Board, is authorized to conduct the
inspection on behalf of the Regional Board. The purpose of the inspection is to
determine the facility's compliance with the Regional Board's Dairy Permit, General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Order
No. 99-11, and/or its renewed version (General Dairy Permit).
The information gathered during the inspection may include, but is not limited to; the
location and contact information, number and type of animals within the facility, status of
development and implementation of the Engineered Waste Management Plan, and the
manure/wastewater handling and disposal practices. Digital photographs may be taken
and samples may be collected during the inspection. The information gathered will be
provided to Regional Board staff for review and will assist us in determining whether the
facility is in compliance with the General Dairy Permit. After review of the inspection
report, Regional Board staff may contact you for additional information regarding your
facility or for necessary follow-up.
We look forward to your cooperation with this matter. Please direct any questions to
Sincerel'
Chief
Compliance Section
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Appendix AL - Page 805
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
STATE OF COLORADO
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor
Christopher E, Urbina, MD, MPH
Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of thi
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd.
Phone {303) 692-2000 Denver. Colorado 80230-6928
Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) 692-3090
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us
September 18, 2012
Subject: Notification of Upcoming CAFO Inspection
Dear Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Operator:
This letter provides formal notification of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment's intent to conduct a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation inspection of this
facility. [Insert Name], working under contract for the state, is authorized to conduct the
inspection on the department's behalf. The purpose of the inspection is to determine the facility's
compliance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 81, Animal Feeding
Operations Control Regulation (5 CCR 1002-81) and, if applicable, Regulation No. 61, Colorado
Discharge Permit System Regulation (5 CCR 1002-61).
The information gathered during the inspection may include the following:
• Facility location and contact information
• Number and type of animals confined
• Information about site characteristics such as manure/wastewater handling and storage
facilities and nutrient management practices
Digital photographs may be taken during the inspection. The information gathered will be
provided to the department for review. Please be aware that you may be contacted by the
department for additional information regarding your facility or for necessary follow-up.
We look forward to your cooperation with this matter. Please direct any questions to me at
(xxx) xxx-xxxx, or via e-mail at [insert email address].
Sincerely,
e people of Colorado
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
Appendix AL - Page 806
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Fax
To:
[Insert Operator]
From:
[Insert Name]
Fax:
[Insert Fax Number]
Pages:
2 (including cover page)
Re:
CAFO Inspection, [DATE]
Date:
[Insert Date]
Dear Mr./Ms. [Name],
Please find attached the Letter of Introduction from [insert name] regarding the Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) inspection scheduled for the facility located at [address] on
[Month] [Day], 2012 at [Time AM/PM],
The inspection should last approximately 2 to 3 hours and will consist of a records review and a
facility tour. To expedite the records review portion of the inspection, please have available any
of the documents and records listed below that you keep for your operation. (Please note that
this is not meant to be a list of records that you are required to keep. This is simply a list of the
types of records that we would like to review if you do keep them for your operation.)
• Records of third party manure and/or wastewater transfers
• Nutrient management plan (NMP)
• Land application records (for example, nutrient rate recommendations, records of
the amounts of manure and/or wastewater or nutrients applied, or records of the
dates and fields for each land application event)
• Records of soil, manure, and/or wastewater sampling and analysis
• Facility inspection records (records of inspections that you perform of any
impoundments, berms, swales, or other structures used to contain or divert manure
and/or wastewater)
• Documentation of:
- Calculations of the volume of process wastewater runoff generated for each
impoundment
- Drawings of each impoundment
- Design documentation or calculations of size requirements for stormwater and
process wastewater diversion structures.
• Documentation of the terms of the NMP
The facility tour portion of the inspection will focus on manure and/or wastewater handling,
storage, and nutrient management practices at your operation.
I look forward to meeting with you [next week].
Sincerely,
Appendix AL - Page 807
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AM -
Sampling Procedures and Equipment
Appendix AM - Page 808
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
CAFO inspectors may be required to collect wastewater, manure, or soil samples during an
inspection. Sample collection may be planned in advance or opportunistic. In addition,
familiarity with sample collection is useful for determining if the facility followed appropriate
procedures for sampling wastewater, manure, and soil. The facility representative may not be
familiar with sampling procedures if they are collected by a consultant or extension agent.
Planned sample collection may occur when:
• EPA wants to validate results from soil and manure samples collected by the CAFO
for laboratory analysis;
• Surface water or streambed sediment samples are collected as evidence to
demonstrate the presence of pollutants discharged from the CAFO; or
• EPA wants to collect samples from standing water in the production area to
establish pollutant concentrations.
Opportunistic sampling might occur when a facility is observed to be discharging during the
inspection. Regardless, the inspector should be prepared to collect samples. Prior to the
inspection, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) should be prepared and the inspector
should prepare and be familiar with sampling equipment. Sampling, analysis, preservation
technique, sample holding time, and sample container requirements are provided in 40 CFR
Part 136 as authorized by Section 304(h) of the CWA.
Chapter 5 of the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual is a helpful reference for wastewater
sampling/analysis.
Water and wastewater sampling procedures
Typically grab samples will be collected during a CAFO inspection, not composite samples. Grab
samples are individual samples collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes and
are representative of conditions at the time the sample is collected. The collection of a grab
sample is appropriate when a sample is needed to:
• Sample an effluent that does not discharge on a continuous basis
• Provide information about instantaneous concentrations of pollutants at a specific
time
• Allow collection of a variable sample volume
• Corroborate composite samples
Some parameters may be sampled only by grab sampling, but others may be sampled by either
grab or composite sampling. Parameters not amenable to compositing include pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorine, purgeable organics, oil and grease, coliform bacteria,
and others specified in 40 CFR Part 136. Volatile organics, sulfides, phenols, and phosphorus
samples can be composited but require special handling procedures. BOD and ammonia
Appendix AM - Page 809
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
nitrogen can be sampled by using either grab or composite techniques; if composite sampling is
used, appropriate preservation must be provided during and after the sampling period.
Typical parameters sampled at CAFOs are those which readily show an effect on water quality
by the discharge. These might include Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), fecal or total
coliform bacteria, specific conductance, and ammonia nitrogen. Many other parameters,
however, may appropriately be sampled to document such discharges. Sampling of any one or
a combination of these parameters can aid the inspector in documenting an illegal discharge.
The volume of samples collected depends on the type and number of analyses needed, as
reflected in the parameters to be measured. Obtain the volume of the sample sufficient for all
the required analyses plus an additional amount to provide for any split samples or repeat
analyses. Consult the laboratory receiving the sample for any specific volume required. In
addition, EPA's Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (USEPA 1979b) and
Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater (USEPA 1982), and
the current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved edition of Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater [American Public Health Association (APHA),
American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF) contain
specific recommended minimum sample volumes for different pollutant parameters.
Sample storage and holding times
40 CFR Part 136 describes required sample containers, sample preservation, and sample
holding time. It is essential that the sample containers be made of chemically resistant material
unaffected by the concentrations of the pollutants measured. In addition, sample containers
must have a closure that will protect the sample from contamination. Collect wastewater
samples for chemical analysis in plastic (polyethylene) containers. Exceptions to this general
rule are organic pollutant samples which are collected in properly cleaned glass jars or bottles
and sealed. Collect bacteriological samples in properly sterilized plastic or glass containers.
Ensure sample containers are clean and uncontaminated. Review analytical procedures for
specific container cleaning procedures. Use precleaned and sterilized disposable containers
when possible. If not, use the following procedures for cleaning sample containers:
• Wash with hot water and detergent.
• Rinse with acid (e.g., nitric for metals).
• Rinse with tap water, then rinse three or more times with organic-free water.
• Rinse glass containers with an interference-free, redistilled solvent (such as acetone
or methylene chloride for extractable organics).
• Dry in contaminant-free area.
Table K 1 presents required containers, preservation techniques, and holding times for
parameters that might be analyzed in a CAFO water sample.
Appendix AM - Page 810
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
TABLE K 1. Required containers, preservation techniques, and holding times (EPA 2004)
Parameter
Container
Preservative
Maximum Holding
Time
Coliform, fecal and
total
Polyethylene or glass
Cool, 4°C
0.008% Na2S2035
6 hours
Ammonia
Polyethylene or glass
Cool, 4°C
H2SO4 to pH<2
28 days
Dissolved Oxygen
Probe
Winkler
Glass bottle & top
Glass bottle & top
None required
Fix onsite and store
dark
Analyze immediately
8 hours
Chloride
Polyethylene or glass
None required
28 days
BODs
Polyethylene or glass
Cool, 4°C
48 hours
Total phosphorus
Polyethylene or glass
Cool, 4°C
H2SO4 to pH<2
28 days
Nitrate
Polyethylene or glass
Cool, 4°C
48 hours
Identify each sample accurately and completely. Use labels or tags to identify the samples that
are moisture-resistant and able to withstand field conditions. Use a waterproof pen to
complete the labels or tags. A numbered label or tag associated with a field sample data sheet
containing detailed information on the sample is preferable to using only a label or tag for
information. The information for each sample should include the following:
• Facility name/location
• Sample site location
• Sample number
• Name of sample collector
• Date and time of collection
• Indication of grab or composite sample with appropriate time and volume
information
• Identification of parameter to be analyzed
• Preservative used.
To ensure the validity of the permit compliance sampling data in court, written records must
accurately trace the custody of each sample through all phases of the monitoring program. The
primary objective of this chain-of-custody is to create an accurate written record that can be
used to trace the possession and handling of the sample from the moment of its collection
through its analysis and introduction as evidence.
• Use sample seals to protect the sample's integrity from the time of collection to the
time it is opened in the laboratory. The seal should indicate the collector's name, the
date and time of sample collection, and sample identification number.
Appendix AM - Page 811
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Pack samples properly to prevent breakage. Seal or lock the shipping container to
readily detect any evidence of tampering can be readily detected. Use of tamper
proof evidence tape is recommended.
• Place samples on ice or synthetic ice substitute that will maintain sample
temperature at 4°C throughout shipment.
• Accompany every sample with a sample tag and a chain-of-custody record that has
been completed, signed, and dated. The chain-of-custody record should include the
names of sample collectors, sample identification numbers, date and time of sample
collection, location of sample collection, and names and signatures of all persons
handling the sample in the field and in the laboratory.
• The responsibility for proper packaging, labeling, and transferring of possession of
the sample lies with the inspector.
• Accompany all sample shipments with the chain-of-custody record and other
pertinent forms. The originator retains a copy of these forms. Also, the originator
must retain all receipts associated with the shipment.
• EPA Inspectors with the responsibility of working with hazardous materials that are
placed in commerce (transporting/shipping) must have hazardous materials training
as required by the Department of Transportation.
• When transferring possession of samples, the transferee must sign and record the
date and time on the chain-of-custody record (use the currently approved record). In
general, make custody transfers for each sample, although samples may be
transferred as a group, if desired. Each person who takes custody must fill in the
appropriate section of the chain-of-custody record.
• Pack and ship samples in accordance with applicable International Air
Transportation Association (IATA) and/or DOT regulations.
In general, the most common monitoring errors usually are improper sampling methodology,
improper preservation, and excessive sample holding time. In addition, the inspector can
analyze field blanks to check for analytical artifacts and/or background introduced sampling and
analytical procedures.
Field Blanks
Field blanks are distilled or de-ionized water samples prepared when you are collecting water
quality samples. Field blanks are prepared, in the field, after cleaning all sampling equipment
but before sample collection. Blanks are prepared by pouring distilled de-ionized water into
each scoop, dipper, etc. used for sample collection and then into sample bottles as if they were
actual field samples. The field blanks are processed and analyzed in an identical manner as the
water quality samples. If the lab detects any contamination in the blanks, the sampling results
could be considered tainted (either from contamination, errors in sampling, or analysis
problems). Collection and analysis of field blanks is not required by federal CAFO regulations;
however, field blanks are used for quality control to assess whether contamination was
introduced during sampling, and may prove useful in interpretation of results.
Appendix AM - Page 812
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Soil sampling procedures
Crop nutrient requirements vary depending on factors such as soil characteristics and previous
fertilization. Soil testing is used to provide agronomic and environmentally sound nutrient and
lime recommendations. It provides growers a means to assess soil pH and plant-available
nutrient content, to determine the need for addition of lime and nutrients, and to minimize
nutrient losses to the environment from over-application.
Good animal manure management includes routine soil sampling on every field that manure is
applied. EPA generally considers soil sampling for phosphorus every 5 years as the minimum
necessary to properly manage soil nutrient levels (as is required for Large dairy, beef, poultry,
swine, and veal calf CAFOs under the ELG. 40 CFR Part 412.4(c)(3)).
Proper sampling is the most important component of an accurate soil test. If a representative
sample is not collected, the recommendations developed by the laboratory will likely be
inaccurate, resulting in excessive nutrient application or deficiencies that will affect production.
Permit writers and inspectors will generally not be collecting soil samples, so this section is
provided for informational purposes only. However, enforcement actions might require the soil
sample collection in some cases.
A soil probe is the most efficient way to collect samples. For facilities applying nutrients at a
nitrogen-based rate, collect separate soil samples at depths of 0 to 12 and 12 to 24 inches.
Collect soil samples at a depth of 0 to 12 inches only at facilities applying at a phosphorus-based
rate.
Every soil sample submitted for testing typically consist of about 15 to 20 cores taken at
random locations throughout one field or management unit. The various cores will be used to
form one composite sample to be submitted for laboratory analysis. Keep in mind that each
composite sample should represent only one general soil type or condition. If the field contains
areas that are obviously different in slope, color, drainage, and texture and if those areas can
and will be managed separately, a separate sample should be submitted.
Manure sampling procedures
Manure is a variable material requiring proper sampling procedures to ensure collection of a
representative sample. Manure samples submitted to a laboratory should represent the
average composition of the material that will be applied to the field. For liquid manure, sample
directly from the storage structure, from the outlet pipe where liquid is removed, or from the
field using catch cans to collect samples applied through sprinklers. A minimum of six separate
liquid manure subsamples must be collected. Combine the subsamples in a clean bucket,
thoroughly mix, and transfer approximately one pint of liquid to a clean bottle or another rigid
container.
For solid manure, remove the surface six-inch crust and use an auger or shovel to core into the
pile. Take a minimum of six separate subsamples from around the pile and combine them in a
clean bucket. Mix well and transfer approximately one quart to a clean plastic bag. Keep all
manure samples cool until delivered to a lab.
Appendix AM - Page 813
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
It is important that proper containers are used and maximum holding or shipping times are also
identified and followed to avoid contaminating or altering the collected samples.
Laboratory identification
The laboratory selected for analysis of surface water or discharge samples may be different
from the laboratory selected for analyzing manure and soil samples. Regardless, the laboratory
selected should be certified to perform the analyses according to 40 CFR Part 136 methods for
water samples and state technical standards for nutrient management for soil and manure
samples. Ideally, the laboratory will be able to provide sampling materials at no charge along
with sample collection and preparation instructions and mailing labels (if needed).
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 123.36 requires that state technical standards for nutrient
management identify acceptable labs or methods for conducting soil and manure analyses.
Alternately, NRCS' CPS 590 (NRCS 2011) specifies requirements for selecting laboratories to
conduct soil and manure analyses. Soil test analyses must be performed by laboratories
successfully meeting the requirements and performance standards of the North American
Proficiency Testing Program-Performance Assessment Program (NAPT-PAP) under the auspices
of the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) and NRCS, or other NRCS-approved program that
considers laboratory performance and proficiency to assure accuracy of soil test results.
Manure testing analyses must be performed by laboratories successfully meeting the
requirements and performance standards of the Manure Testing Laboratory Certification
program (MTLCP) under the auspices of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, or other
NRCS- approved program that considers laboratory performance and proficiency to assure
accurate manure test results.
Data Handling and Reporting
Verified analytical results are normally entered into a laboratory data management system of
some type. The system should contain the sampling data, including sampling time and exact
location, dates and times, names of analysts, analytical methods or techniques used, and
analytical results. Data are then reported to the inspector for inclusion in the compliance
report.
Appendix AM - Page 814
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AN -
Sample Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Appendix AN - Page 815
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
CAFO inspectors may be required to collect wastewater, manure, or soil samples during an
inspection. Sample collection may be planned in advance or opportunistic. Opportunistic
sampling might occur when a facility is observed to be discharging during the inspection.
Regardless, the inspector should be prepared to collect samples. Prior to the inspection, a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) should be prepared and the inspector should prepare
and be familiar with sampling equipment. Below are two QAPP templates for CAFO sampling
and analysis.
Sampling, analysis, preservation technique, sample holding time, and sample container
requirements are provided in 40 CFR Part 136 as authorized by Section 304(h) of the CWA.
Chapter 5 of the NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual is a helpful reference for wastewater
sampling/analysis.
Appendix AN - Page 816
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP) TEMPLATE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region
This QAPP template was prepared based on EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5), EPA/240/B-01/003, March 2001
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf). It contains an outline of
the QAPP elements based on the EPA QA/R-5, with an abridged description of
the discussion that should be included within each section (included in redline text). This
template was created as a tool to assist in development of QAPPs. Users of this QAPP template
may consult the EPA QA/R-5 or the more general Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans
(EPAQA/G-5), EPA/240/R-02/009, December 2002 (http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-
final.pdf) as appropriate to obtain additional details and guidance for development of a QAPP.
Appendix AN - Page 817
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DRAFT
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
Contract/WA/Grant No./Project Identifier
<Enter specific identifier
Prepared by:
<Enter the contact information including name, affiliation, address, and phone number>
Prepared for:
<
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region
* o %
\mj
pho^° <Enter date>
Appendix AN - Page 818
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SECTION A - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A.l Title of Plan and Approval
Quality Assurance Project Plan
<Enter Title of Project>
Prepared by:
<Enter Affiliation>
Date:
<Enter name, Organization^ Project Manager / Principal Investigator
Approvals:
Date:
<Enter name, Organization^ Quality Assurance Officer
Date:
< Enter name, Organization^ Section Chief (Mail Code)
Date:
< Enter name, Organization >, Associate Director (Mail Code)
Date:
<Enter additional contacts, as needed>
Appendix AN - Page 819
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.2 Table of Contents
<TOC must be regenerated upon completion ofQAPP content. To do so, Click in TOC below, select Update
Field, then select Update Page Numbers Only>
SECTION A - PROJECT MANAGEMENT 819
A.l Title of Plan and Approval [[[819
A.2 Table of Contents[[[820
A.3 Distribution List[[[822
A.4 Project/Task Organization[[[822
A.5 Problem Definition/Background 822
A.6 Project/Task Description [[[822
A.7 Quality Objectives & Criteria[[[823
A.8 Special Training/Certification 823
A.9 Documents and Records[[[823
SECTION B - DATA GENERATION & ACQUISITION 824
B.l Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) 824
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
List of Tables
Table A.l Roles & Responsibilities 4
<insert list of tables>
List of Figures
Figure A.l Organization Chart 4
<insert list of figures>
Appendices
<insert list of appendices>
Appendix AN - Page 821
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
A.3 Distribution List
List the individuals and their organizations that need copies of the approved QA Project Plan
and any subsequent revisions, including all persons responsible for implementation (e.g.,
project managers), the QA managers, and representatives of all groups involved.
<insert text>
Name, Agency/Company, Title, other contact information as needed
A.4 Project/Task Organization
Identify the individuals or organizations participating in the project and discuss their specific
roles and responsibilities. Include the principal data users, the decision makers, the project QA
manager, and all persons responsible for implementation. Project QA manager position must
indicate independence from unit colleting/using data.
Table A.l Roles & Responsibilities
Individual(s) Assigned:
Responsible for:
Authorized to:
Name
Responsibility
Action
Name
Responsibility
Action
Provide a concise organization chart showing the relationships and the lines of communication
among all project participants. The organization chart must also identify any subcontractor
relationships relevant to environmental data operations, including laboratories providing
analytical services.
Figure A.l Organization Chart
A.5 Problem Definition/Background
State the specific problem to be solved, decision to be made, or outcome to be achieved.
Include sufficient background information to provide a historical, scientific, and regulatory
perspective for this particular project.
• Clearly state problem to be resolved, decision to be made, or hypothesis to be
tested
• Historical & background information
• Cite applicable technical, regulatory, or program-specific quality standards, criteria,
or objectives
<insert text>
A.6 Project/Task Description
Provide a summary of all work to be performed, products to be produced, and the schedule for
implementation. Provide maps or tables that show or state the geographic locations of field
tasks. This discussion need not be lengthy or overly detailed, but should give an overall picture
of how the project will resolve the problem or question described in A.5.
Appendix AN - Page 822
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• List measurements to be made/data to obtain
• Note special personnel or equipment requirements
• Provide work schedule
<insert text>
A.7 Quality Objectives & Criteria
Discuss the quality objectives for the project and the performance criteria to achieve those
objectives. EPA requires the use of a systematic planning process to define these quality
objectives and performance criteria.
• State project objectives and limits, both qualitatively & quantitatively
• State & characterize measurement quality objectives as to applicable action levels or
criteria
<insert text>
A.8 Special Training/Certification
Identify and describe any specialized training or certifications needed by personnel in order to
successfully complete the project or task. Discuss how such training will be provided and how
the necessary skills will be assured and documented.
<insert text>
A.9 Documents and Records
Describe the process and responsibilities for ensuring the appropriate project personnel have
the most current approved version of the QA Project Plan, including version control, updates,
distribution, and disposition.
Itemize the information and records which must be included in the data report package and
specify the reporting format for hard copy and any electronic forms. Records can include raw
data, data from other sources such as data bases or literature, field logs, sample preparation
and analysis logs, instrument printouts, model input and output files, and results of calibration
and QC checks.
Identify any other records and documents applicable to the project that will be produced, such
as audit reports, interim progress reports, and final reports. Specify the level of detail of the
field sampling, laboratory analysis, literature or data base data collection, or modeling
documents or records needed to provide a complete description of any difficulties
encountered.
Specify or reference all applicable requirements for the final disposition of records and
documents, including location and length of retention period.
<insert text>
Appendix AN - Page 823
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SECTION B - DATA GENERATION & ACQUISITION
B.l Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design)
Describe the experimental data generation or data collection design for the project, including as
appropriate:
• Types and number of samples required
• Sampling network design & rationale for design
• Sampling locations & frequency of sampling
• Sample matrices
• Classification of each measurement parameter as either critical or needed for
information only
• Validation study information, for non-standard situations
<insert text>
B.2 Sampling Methods
Describe the sampling procedures:
• Identify sample collection procedures.
• Identify sampling methods and equipment
o Sampling methods by number, date, and regulatory citation, where appropriate
o Implementation requirements
o Sample preservation requirements
o Decontamination procedures
o Any support facilities needed
• Describe specific performance requirements for the method.
o Address what to do when a failure in the sampling or measurement system
occurs
o Who is responsible for corrective action
o How the effectiveness of the corrective action will be determined and
documented
<insert text>
B.3 Sampling Handling & Custody
Describe the requirements for sample handling and custody in the field, laboratory, and
transport. Examples of sample labels, custody forms, and sample custody logs should be
included.
<insert text>
Appendix AN - Page 824
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
B.4 Analytical Methods
Identify analytical methods to be followed (with all options) & required equipment.
• Specify any specific method performance criteria
• State requested lab turnaround time
• Provide validation information for non-standard methods
• Identify procedures to follow when failures occur
• Identify individuals responsible for corrective action and appropriate documentation
<insert text>
B.5 Quality Control
Identify QC activities needed for each sampling, analysis, or measurement technique. For each
required QC activity, list the associated method or procedure, acceptance criteria, and
corrective action. State or reference the required control limits for each QC activity and
corrective action required when control limits are exceeded and how the effectiveness of the
corrective action shall be determined and documented.
Describe or reference the procedures to be used to calculate applicable statistics (e.g.,
precision, bias, accuracy).
<insert text>
B.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance
Describe how inspections and acceptance testing of instruments, equipment, and their
components affecting quality will be performed and documented to assure their intended use
as specified.
Describe how deficiencies are to be resolved, when re-inspection will be performed, and how
the effectiveness of the corrective action shall be determined and documented.
Identify the equipment and/or systems requiring periodic maintenance and/or calibration.
Describe how periodic preventative maintenance will be performed, including frequency, to
ensure availability and satisfactory performance of the systems. Note availability & location of
spare parts.
<insert text>
B.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
Identify all tools, gauges, instruments, and other sampling, measuring, and test equipment used
for data generation or collection activities affecting quality that must be controlled and
calibrated.
Appendix AN - Page 825
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Describe or reference how calibration will be conducted using certified equipment and/or
standards with known valid relationships to nationally recognized performance standards. If no
such nationally recognized standards exist, document the basis for the calibration.
Indicate how records of calibration will be maintained and be traceable to the equipment.
<insert text>
B.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies & Consumables
State acceptance criteria for supplies and consumables and describe how they will be inspected
for use in the project. Note responsible individuals.
<insert text>
B.9 Data Acquisition Requirements for Non-Direct Measurements
Identify type of data needed from non-measurement sources (e.g., computer data bases and
literature files), along with acceptance criteria for their use. Define intended use and describe
any limitations of such data.
<insert text>
B.10 Data Management
Describe data management process from generation to final use or storage. Describe standard
record keeping & data storage and retrieval requirements. Provide examples of any forms or
checklists to be used.
Describe data handling equipment & procedures used to process, compile and analyze data
(e.g., required computer hardware & software). Describe the process for assuring that
applicable information resource management requirements, including EPA specific
requirements, are satisfied.
<insert text>
Appendix AN - Page 826
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SECTION C - ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
C.l Assessments and Response Actions
Describe each assessment to be used in the project including the frequency and type (e.g.,
surveillance, management systems reviews, readiness reviews, technical systems audits,
performance evaluations, data quality).
• What is expected information from assessment?
• What are assessment success criteria?
• What is assessment schedule?
Describe response actions to each assessment.
• How will corrective actions be addressed?
• Who is responsible for corrective actions?
How will corrective actions be verified and documented?
<insert text>
C.2 Reports to Management
Identify frequency and distribution of reports to inform management of project status:
• Results of performance evaluations & audits
• Results of periodic data quality assessments
• Any significant QA problems
Identify the preparer and recipients of reports, and describe any actions the recipient should
take as a result of the report.
<insert text>
Appendix AN - Page 827
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SECTION D - DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
D.l Data Review, Verification, and Validation
State criteria for accepting, rejecting, or qualifying data; include project-specific calculations or
algorithms.
<insert text>
D.2 Verification and Validation Methods
Describe the process for data validation and verification. Identify issue resolution procedure
and responsible individuals. Identify the method for conveying results to data users. Provide
examples of any forms or checklists to be used.
<insert text>
D.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements
Describe how the project results will be reconciled with the requirements defined by the data
user or decision maker. Outline the proposed methods to analyze the data and determine
departures from assumptions established in the planning phase of data collection. Describe
how reconciliation with user requirements will be documented, issues will be resolved, and
how limitations on the use of the data will be reported to decision makers.
<insert text>
Appendix AN - Page 828
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
GENERIC QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
FOR
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING
OPERATIONS (CAFO) INSPECTION SAMPLING
December 2012
Rev 5.0
QAPP APPROVAL:
Date:
Unit Manager, USEPA
Date:
Director, USEPA
Date:
QA Manager, USEPA
Appendix AN - Page 829
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Management Elements 832
1.1 Distribution List[[[832
1.2 Project/Task Organization [[[832
1.3 Problem Definition/ Background 833
1.3.1 Background 833
1.3.2 Objectives/Scope 834
1.4 Project/Task Description and Schedule 834
1.4.1 Project/Task Description 834
1.4.2 Schedule of Tasks 834
Table 1 - Activity Schedule and Tentative Start and Completion Dates*. 834
1.4.3 CAFO Site-Specific Inspection Plan (CSSIP) 835
1.5 Data Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data 835
1.6 Special Training Requirements/Certification 836
1.7 Documentation and Records 837
2.0 Measurement/ Data Acquisition 837
2.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design) 837
2.2 Inspection and Sample Collection Procedures 838
2.2.1 Health and Safety 838
2.2.2 Location 838
2.2.3 Sample Collection 838
2.2.4 Sample Collection Equipment 839
Table 2 -Suggested Sample Equipment for CAFO Field Inspections 839
2.2.5 Shipping Requirements 840
2.2.6 Decontamination Procedures 840
2.3 Analytical Methods Requirements 840
2.4 Quality Control Requirements 840
2.5 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance Requirements 841
2.6 Instrument Calibration and Frequency 841
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
4.0 Data Validation and Usability[[[843
4.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements 843
4.2 Validation and Verification Methods 843
4.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements 844
Attachment 1-Sample Alteration Form 847
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
1.0 Project Management Elements
1.1 Distribution List
Copies of the completed/signed project plan should be distributed to:
Name
Title (examples)
Mail Stop
Phone
Number
e-Mail Address
EPA Inspector
Regional Sample
Control Center (RSCC)
QA
Supervisor
Lab Manager
Summary of analytical results shall be sent to the EPA Inspector. Electronic copies of data are
not required unless specifically requested.
1.2 Project/ Task Organization
This section identifies the personnel involved in CAFO inspection sampling and analytical
activities and defines their respective responsibilities in the process.
1. Inspector
The inspector conducts the inspection under the authority provided by the Clean Water Act.
The inspector's responsibility is to prepare a final inspection report to be submitted to the
immediate program manager based on the results of the inspection conducted and the sample
analytical data obtained from the laboratory. In conjunction, the inspector shall also be
responsible for:
• Site inspection and recording observations in a note book;
• Documenting the location of site using GPS;
• Conducting dye tracer tests if appropriate;
• Conducting direct readings such as pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc..., if
appropriate;
• Collecting water or effluent samples if appropriate;
• Coordinating with the Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC) for regional sample
numbers, if appropriate;
• Coordinating with the mobile EPA or commercial laboratory for sample analyses, if
appropriate;
• Maintaining sample documentation, including chain of custody, photographs, and
receiving sample analytical results.
Appendix AN - Page 832
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
All of these tasks shall be performed in accordance with the approved QA Plan for CAFO
inspections. Changes in procedure should be documented in an appropriate addendum to the
plan or sample alteration form included with the site-specific inspection plan.
2. Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC)
The role of RSCC is to coordinate and schedule sample delivery and analysis with the regional
laboratory based on the information provided by the inspector in the CAFO Site-Specific
Inspection Plan Form (see Appendix A). For sample tracking, the RSCC also provides the
inspector with an assigned block of regional sample numbers and the corresponding project
code.
3. Quality Assurance Officer (QAO)
The QAO is part of the <insert text> and is located within <insert text>. The QAO is designated
and assigned by the Unit Manager and authorized by the Regional QA Manager (RQAM) as
his/her designee. The QAO works with the EPA inspectors and ensures that the sample
collection and analyses are covered by an approved QAPP that incorporates adequate QA/QC
activities to generate data of known and documented quality. The QAO reviews the preliminary
CAFO Site-Specific Inspection Plan (see section 1.4.3 of this QAPP) prior to inspection, provide
technical comments, if necessary, and ensure that the RSCC coordinates and schedules the
analysis of parameters of concern with the applicable analytical methods and associated
method performance measures. The QAO may also need to prepare the Statement of Work
(SOW) that will be needed for sub-contracting sample analyses by a commercial laboratory.
4. Quality Assurance Officer (QAO)
Samples for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium)
analyses will be done at <insert text> located in <insert text>. Due to short technical holding
times, for CAFO inspections, samples for E. Coli and fecal coliform are sent to <insert text>. In
some cases, samples may need to be shipped to a commercial or State lab. For the CAFO
program, the <insert text> lab(s) is/are responsible for the following tasks: provision of
"certified clean" sample containers and preservatives, sample analysis, data generation, data
reduction and validation, submission of summary of analytical results and/or data print-outs (if
requested) for each sample analysis to the inspector and the corresponding QC summary
results for precision, accuracy and bias of the values reported.
1.3 Problem Definition/ Background
1.3.1 Background
The Federal and State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
monitors and regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United
States. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are point sources, as defined by the
CWA [Section 502(14). CAFO means an "animal feeding operation" (AFO) which meets the
criteria in 40 CFR Part 122, appendix B, or which the EPA designates as a significant contributor
of pollution pursuant to 40 CFR Part 122.23.
Appendix AN - Page 833
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The purpose of this Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide Inspectors from
<insert text> with a basic QAPP that will address the project required Data Quality Objectives
(DQO) and provide guidelines on sample collection, sample documentation, analytical methods,
and data validation and interpretation of data deliverables. This document was prepared in
compliance with the EPA Order 5360.1A2 and the EPA QA/G-5 "Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans, EPA/240/R-02/009".
1.3.2 Objectives/Scope
Determine compliance of CAFO discharges with the Clean Water Act through the collection of
samples of opportunity from the facilities inspected.
1.4 Project/ Task Description and Schedule
1.4.1 Project/Task Description
This Generic QAPP is developed for the purpose of supporting announced and unannounced
CAFO inspection and sampling activities that may be performed as part of the NPDES program.
Samples for coliform determination will be analyzed by <insert text>. The lab must be
accredited and /or certified by a recognized accrediting authority such as <insert text>. Samples
for other parameters, if needed, will be analyzed by <insert text>. All of the analyses will be
performed in accordance with the analytical methodologies and QC requirements specified in
Table 3 - Data Quality Objectives Summary of this Generic QAPP. See the sample collection
section and specific analyses that will be performed.
1.4.2 Schedule of Tasks
Table 1 - Activity Schedule and Tentative Start and Completion Dates*
Activity
Estimated Start
Date
Estimated Completion Date
Comments
Obtain block of numbers
from RSCC
Mobilize to Sites
See CSSIP
Sample Collection
Analysis of Samples (on-
site or fixed laboratory)
Data Review &
Verification, Reporting to
Inspector
Target Completion Date
* Note: Most of the inspections are unannounced where the facilities inspected, availability of
samples and the parameters of concern are unknown at the time of inspection. The inspectors
are allowed to submit the CAFO Site-Specific Inspection QA Plan (last 2 pages of this generic
QAPP) within 30 days from the last day of sample collection.
Appendix AN - Page 834
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
1.4.3 CAFO Site-Specific Inspection Plan fCSSIP)
This CAFO generic QAPP shall cover the QA requirements of all CAFO inspections performed by
EPA inspectors within Region <insert text>. After <insert text> approval of this generic QAPP,
the inspectors are only required to fill-out the summary of this generic QAPP called the "CAFO
Site-Specific Inspection Plan (CSSIP)". The CSSIP is a two-page summary of the sampling,
analysis and QA requirements that may be performed during facility inspections. The CSSIP lists
the name of facilities inspected, the samples of opportunity that were collected and the
chemical and microbiological parameters that were determined by the lab. Table 3 - Data
Quality Objectives Summary of this Generic QAPP is also a part of the CSSIP. The inspector(s)
check mark the parameters listed in Table 2 applicable to the samples of opportunity collected
from the facilities inspected. The draft CSSIP is submitted to the QAO assigned to the project
prior to the inspection date for a quick review. A final CSSIP is submitted to the RSCC within 30
days from the last day of sample collection for filing. The first page of CSSIP contains the
project, the account code, EPA sample numbers assigned for inspection, list of facilities
inspected, address, contact person and phone number, the names of inspectors conducting the
inspection and their respective environmental organization affiliations, the total number of
samples collected per facility, and the parameters that were determined. The second page of
CSSIP is the Table 3 - the Summary of Data Quality Objectives listing the number of samples
collected, parameters for analysis, analytical procedures and methodologies and the precision,
accuracy and other DQO requirements of the inspection. If applicable, Attachment land 2
(Sample Alteration and Corrective Action Forms), may also be included with the CSSIP. The
CSSIP is submitted to the QA Office for review and approval before a scheduled sampling event
or immediately after collecting samples of opportunity. A blank 2 page CSSIP is attached In
Appendix A of this Generic QAPP.
1.5 Data Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are the quantitative and qualitative terms inspectors and
project managers use to describe how good the data needs to be in order to meet the project's
objectives. DQOs for measurement data (referred to here as data quality indicators) are
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability, and measurement range.
The overall QA objective for analytical data is to ensure that data of known and acceptable
quality are provided. To achieve this goal, data must be reviewed for 1) representativeness, 2)
comparability, 3) precision, 4) accuracy (or bias), 5) completeness and 6) sensitivity. Precision,
accuracy, sensitivity, completeness, sample representativeness and data comparability are
necessary attributes to ensure that analytical data are reliable, scientifically sound, and legally
defensible. Each analytical result or set of results generated should be fully defensible in any
legal action, whether administrative, civil, or criminal.
Precision: The precision of each test depends on the number of tubes used for the analysis. The
method that is used for the CAFO analysis (SM 9221) utilizes a confidence limit of 95 %. Samples
in duplicate will be analyzed on a 10 % frequency (1 per 10 samples collected). The precision is
evaluated using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) values between the duplicate sample
results.
Appendix AN - Page 835
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Accuracy: This is not true relative to microbiology. The method has a detection limit of 1
MPN/100 ml. For other parameters analyzed in the fixed laboratory, accuracy will be evaluated
by the use percent recovery (%R) of the target analyte in spiked or QC fortified samples.
% Recovery = SQ - NQ x 100
S
SQ = quantity of spike found in sample
NQ = quantity found in native (unspiked) sample
S = quantity of spike or surrogate added to native sample
Representativeness is the degree to which data from the project accurately represent a
particular characteristic of the environmental matrix which is being tested. Representativeness
of samples is ensured by adherence to standard field sampling protocols and standard
laboratory protocols. The design of the sampling scheme and number of samples should
provide a representativeness of each matrix or product of the chemical processes being
sampled.
Comparability is the measurement of the confidence in comparing the results of one sampling
event with the results of another achieved by using the same matrix, sample location, sampling
techniques and analytical methodologies.
Completeness: Completeness is the percentage of valid results obtained compared to the total
number of samples taken for a parameter. Since sampling from inspections are usually grab and
limited in number of samples, the number of valid results obtained from the analyses are
expected to be equal or better than 85%. %Completeness may be calculated using the following
formula:
% Completeness = # of valid results x 100
# of samples taken
Sensitivity is the capability of a method or instrument to discriminate between measurement
responses representing different levels of a parameter of interest. This is most often expressed
in terms of method detection limit, instrument detection limit or laboratory quantitation
(reporting) limit.
The QA objectives outlined, above, will be evaluated in conjunction with the data validation
process.
1.6 Special Training Requirements/Certification
Inspectors are required to complete the 24-hour Basic Health and Safety training. The
inspectors will obtain a basic health and safety training certification from the 24-hour training
which should be maintained current by attending an 8-hour safety training refresher course
every year. The inspectors must also have a signed and current "credential" certifying the
Appendix AN - Page 836
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
bearer as "Authorized to Conduct Investigations and Inspections Pursuant to All Federal Laws
Administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency". All of the training
courses listed above are provided by EPA Region <insert text>. Furthermore, sampling and
sample documentation skills are also assured by the "mentoring" provided by the senior
inspectors in the field.
The laboratories performing the sample analysis for this program are SDWA certified and/or
accredited. Scientists (Microbiologists/Chemists) performing the analytical work for this project
have extensive knowledge, skill and demonstrated experience in the execution of the analytical
methods being requested.
1.7 Documentation and Records
Complete documentation for inspections may include but is not limited to the following forms
which should be completed and collated by the EPA Inspector:
• Investigation Report
• Records Inspection Checklist
• Chain of Custody Logs
• Record of Sampling
• Laboratory Analysis Reports
• Photographs, Sketches, Paper Copies, Chemical Labels, MSDS, Application Records or
other documentation.
Investigators will maintain field notes in a bound notebook and all documents, records, and
data collected will be kept in a case file and submitted to the program office with the final
inspection report.
The following documents will be archived at <insert text> or the designated laboratory
performing the analysis: (1) signed hard copies of sampling and chain-of-custody records (2)
electronic and hard copy of analytical data including extraction and sample preparation bench
sheets, raw data and reduced analytical data.
The laboratory will store all sample receipt, sample login, extraction/preparation, and
laboratory instrument print-outs and other analytical documentation as per their established
SOP.
2.0 Measurement/ Data Acquisition
2.1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design)
Prior to compliance inspections, the EPA Inspector will review and evaluate facility files, if
available, which may include facility background information, historical ownership, facility maps
depicting general geographic location, property lines, surrounding land uses, a summary of all
possible source areas of contamination, a summary of past permits requested and/or received,
Appendix AN - Page 837
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
any enforcement actions and their subsequent responses and a list of documents and studies
prepared for the facility, records and inspection reports from previous compliance site visits.
Based on the data and/or a visual survey of the facility, samples of opportunity on an "as
needed" basis will be collected for analysis to characterize the pollutants and determine if they
are in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
2.2 Inspection and Sample Collection Procedures
2.2.1 Health and Safety
Inspectors visiting CAFO facilities, need to be aware of and sensitive to bio-security issues
and/or procedures related to the potential disease transmission from one facility to another.
Facility owners/operators may deny access to a facility because of the existence of a disease or
illness at the facility. In addition, there is a real potential that the CAFO inspector may be the
vector that transmits a disease from one facility to another if proper precautions are not taken.
Minimal recommendations are that visitors to facilities wear freshly laundered clothing and
clean footwear, or disposable and easy to clean rubberized rain gear, booties and gloves. EPA
inspectors should follow the Agency's Biosecurity guidelines
(http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/biosecurity.pdf).
2.2.2 Location
CAFO inspectors should use the Global Positioning System (GPS) for documenting locations of
facilities inspected. Upon return, the locational data from each GPS instrument should be
differentially corrected by the person issuing the equipment.
2.2.3 Sample Collection
Sample collection methods can vary between standard operating procedures used by samplers
and different conditions encountered in the field. The following is general guidance for
samplers. Samplers should document in their notes or field checklist the actual method used
during sample collection.
If samples are collected manually, rubber gloves should be worn to protect the sampler. Also,
the use of safety glasses should be considered. Additional safety information should be covered
in a site safety plan or pre-inspection safety briefing.
When a discharge point is identified, the sampler should consider collecting, when possible,
samples at a minimum of one collection point. This collection point should be obtained at the
discharge point. More sample collection points may be collected by the inspectors if necessary.
When dip samples are taken for coliform analysis, the sampler should carefully remove the cap,
ensuring that neither the inside of sample bottle or cap are touched. If possible, hold the cap,
do not set it down.
To the extent possible, take the sample by holding the bottle near its base in the hand and
plunging it, neck downward, below the surface. Use an extension pole if needed to keep from
walking into the effluent stream and stirring up the sampling area. Turn bottle until neck points
slightly upward and mouth is directed towards the current. If there is no current, create a
Appendix AN - Page 838
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
current by pushing bottle forward horizontally in a direction away from the hand. If available,
there are special apparatuses that will permit mechanical removal of the cap below the water
surface. This can be used to avoid potential contamination of the sample by the sampler.
After collection, carefully recap the sample bottle securely. There should be a 1 inch head space
in the neck of the bottle, to allow adequate mixing by the analyst. If, however, the sample
container is overfilled, DO NOT pour-out any excess sample. Place the cap back securely on the
sample bottle and return to analyst overfilled and a notation will be made in the analyst's
report. The sample bottle should be labeled with the date and time of collection, collector's
name and sample number, and type of analysis requested. This information should be written
on the label using an indelible, waterproof ink. Sample bottle should be placed in plastic bags
and stored on ice immediately following collection until they are accepted by the analyst.
Proper chain of custody procedures should be followed at all times.
Transfer blank: Each inspector will be provided a single transfer blank for each facility to be
inspected and an extra sterile bottle. Half way through the sample collection for each facility,
transfer the contents of the full bottle into a sterile bottle. Be careful not to contaminate the
inside of the bottle or cap during transfer. Label this bottle with date and time of transfer,
name of collector, sample number and label the bottle as a TRANSFER BLANK.
If analysis of additional parameters is needed in a specific case, additional sample containers
may be needed. Required sample volume, container type, preservation techniques, and holding
times for parameters likely to be sampled are included in (Table 3). Inspectors should use their
discretion on which parameters should be used to document violations at a particular facility
and are encouraged to discuss this with representatives of the CAFO program.
2.2.4 Sample Collection Equipment
Equipment needs will vary from inspection to inspection. The list in Table 2 provides
suggestions to be considered prior to leaving for the field.
Table 2 -Suggested Sample Equipment for CAFO Field Inspections
General
Safety
Emergency
Inspector Credentials
Water Proof (Rubber) Boots
First Aid Kit
Field Notebook
Rain gear
Phone numbers
Camera
Rubber gloves
Cell Phone
Waterproof Pens & Markers
Soap, towels, and water for
Clipboard
washing hands
flashlight
Eye protection
Extension Sampling Pole
Hard hat
Sample containers
Ice Chest
Disinfectant Solution (bleach)
and Water for boots1
Extra Set of Coveralls
GPS Unit
Appendix AN - Page 839
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
1 Inspectors/samplers are required to disinfect/decontaminate rubber boots before exiting CAFO facilities to
help avoid transmitting animal pathogens from one facility to another. For more information, see Section 2.2.1
Health and Safety and 2.2.7 Decontamination Procedure of this QAPP.
2.2.5 Shipping Requirements
All of the samples are hand-de live red to the laboratory analyzing the samples. Samples for
coliform analysis will be hand-delivered to the mobile microbiology laboratory within 6 hours of
sample collection. Sufficient ice must be provided to ensure that samples remain cold until
received and processed by the laboratory.
2.2.6 Decontamination Procedures
Samples will be collected using clean sampling devices and sample collection gears. Sampling
devices and sample collection gear like rain gear, rubber boots and gloves will be cleaned and
decontaminated using agricultural-approved disinfectants. Inspectors will follow the proper
health and safety procedures when collecting and handling samples to minimize or not to incur
contamination.
2.3 Analytical Methods Requirements
Not all parameters will be measured for each CAFO facility inspected. In some cases no samples
will be taken at all, and in others, samples may be analyzed for coliform only. In other
situations, samplers may be requested to collect additional data such as temperature, pH,
turbidity, conductivity, etc. Table 3 -Data Quality Objective Summary lists the parameters that
can be measured under this plan, the accuracy, precision, preservative, and holding time
requirements.
2.4 Quality Control Requirements
Quality Control procedures for analyte measurements will be according to the requirements
specified in the method that will be used in the analysis.
Laboratory instrumentation will be calibrated in accordance with the analytical procedure.
Laboratory instrumentation will be maintained in accordance with the instrument
manufacturer's specifications and the laboratory Standard Operating procedures (SOPs).
Other Quality Control Measures
• Media, reagents and water - Media and reagent water required for field analysis will
be prepared and transported to the field site. QC tests specified for drinking water
analysis will be conducted on these supplies prior to being transported. Media will
be stored in tightly capped tubes in such a way to prevent formation of air bubbles
and adverse environmental effects.
• Incubator and water bath - Temperature will be maintained within specified
temperature ranges. Thermometers used for recording temperatures will be
calibrated against NIST certified thermometer on a yearly basis. Temperatures will
be read and recorded twice daily.
Appendix AN - Page 840
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Refrigerator (if present) - Temperature will be maintained within specified
temperature ranges. Thermometers used for recording temperatures will be
calibrated against NIST certified thermometer on a yearly basis. Temperatures will
be read and recorded twice daily.
• Positive and negative culture controls: Organisms as specified in SM 9020B (Intra-
laboratory QC guidelines) will be used on a daily basis to ensure the quality of the
media and laboratory equipment has not changed.
• Negative laboratory control: A media sterile check will be done on a daily basis to
ensure that no changes in media sterility have occurred.
• Duplicates: Ten percent (10%) of routine samples will be processed in duplicate, or a
minimum of one per day that samples are received, whichever is greater. A
duplicate sample is performed from the same sample bottle. Samples for
microbiological analyses on-site are not required to be preserved.
• Laboratory Temperature: Must be maintained within a few degrees of 35 9C to
ensure incubator temperature consistency. This will be accomplished with the use of
thermostatically controlled electric heaters or thermostatically controlled propane
forced air heater.
• Sample Disposal: All "spent" growth media will be autoclaved prior to disposal. All
unused water samples will be disposed of in a manner that will not result in
contamination of the surrounding environment.
2.5 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance Requirements
The laboratory will follow their standard operating procedures for any preventative
maintenance required on laboratory instruments or systems used for this project.
2.6 Instrument Calibration and Frequency
Field maintenance and calibration will be performed where appropriate prior to use of the
instruments. Calibration of samplers will be performed in accordance with the methodologies
used in sample collection and the Instruments Operational Instructions.
The laboratory will follow the calibration procedures found in the methods listed in Table 3 or
in the laboratory's SOPs.
2.7 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables
Sample bottles used for microbial testing will be appropriately cleaned and sterilized. They will
be certified clean polypropylene bottles (250 or 500 mL). All sample jars used for chemical
analysis in this project will be new and certified clean provided by the laboratory. Investigators
will make note of the information on the certificate of analysis that accompanies sample jars to
ensure that they meet the specifications and guidance for contaminant free sample containers.
2.8 Data Acquisition Requirements (non-Direct Measurements)
Not Applicable.
Appendix AN - Page 841
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
2.9 Data Management
A field log notebook, photos, GPS location data and the Field Sample and Chain of Custody Data
Sheets will be used to document the sampling and inspection activities. For each sample
location, the following will be recorded in the notebook:
• facility name and address
• sample number
• date
• time of each sample collection
• physical description of each sample collection point
• weather conditions
• color
• sample appearance
• sample identifier, and measurements
The Field Sample and Chain of Custody Data Sheets will have the following information:
• site name
• sample number
• date
• time of each sample collection
• sampler's name or initials
• sample location.
If applicable, a suffix I -FD will be appended to the sample identified as the field duplicate. For
fixed laboratory analyses, field duplicates will be assigned a separate unique sample identifier
and will be submitted 'blind' to the analytical laboratory. Analytical duplicate results will be
reported with a trailing -AD (analytical duplicate) or D.
All inspection reports including those for potential enforcement cases will be completed within
30 days of inspection date. Validated laboratory results and interpretation (if necessary) will be
appended. Reports will be maintained as enforcement confidential documents until release is
approved by the USEPA Office of Regional Counsel (ORC). Photographs and other supporting
data along with the inspection report will be used to determine NPDES compliance.
All data generated during this project will be processed, stored, and distributed according to
laboratory's SOPs.
Appendix AN - Page 842
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
3.0 Assessment/Oversight
3.1 Assessments and Response Actions
The EPA Inspector will be responsible for reviewing field log notebooks for accuracy and
completeness within 48 hours of each inspection. Sample results provided to the EPA Inspector
by the laboratory will be appended to the inspection reports. The EPA Inspector will compare
the sample information in the field log notebooks with the analytical results appended to the
inspection report to ensure that no transcriptions errors have occurred.
With the exception of the microbiological analyses, RPDs between field duplicate and analytical
duplicate measurements will be calculated by the laboratory. RPD's greater than the project
requirements will be noted in the associated inspection reports.
Laboratories routinely perform performance checks using different program specific quarterly
blind and double blind check standards. Each method of analysis requires specific QA/QC runs
that must be complied with by the laboratory performing the analysis. An internal assessment
of the data and results are also routinely conducted by the appropriate supervisors and the
Laboratory QA Coordinator. No additional audits will be performed on the laboratory for this
project.
Corrective action procedures that might be implemented from QA results or detection of
unacceptable data will be developed if required and documented in Attachment 2.
3.2 Reports to Management
Only the data validation reports with the properly qualified data shall be provided by the
laboratory to the Program Manager and/or Inspectors. If, for any reason, the schedules or
procedures above cannot be followed, the EPA Inspector must complete the Attachment 1-
Sample Alteration Form (SAF). The SAF should be reviewed and approved by the QAO. The
laboratory should be given a copy of the QAO approved SAF for reference and project file.
4.0 Data Validation and Usability
4.1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements
The criteria for the validation will follow those specified in this QA plan and the criteria
specified in the methods.
4.2 Validation and Verification Methods
All data generated shall be validated in accordance with the QA/QC requirements specified in
the methods, and the technical specifications outlined in the QAPP. The summary of all
analytical results will be reported to the EPA Inspector and the Program Manager. The raw data
for this project shall be maintained by the laboratory. Data validation will be performed by the
laboratory for all the analyses prior to the release of data. The laboratory will also archive the
analytical data into their laboratory data management system.
Appendix AN - Page 843
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
4.3 Reconciliation with User Requirements
All data and related information obtained during the course of this project will be included in a
data report package.
Appendix AN - Page 844
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 3 - Data Quality Objectives Summary
Analytical
Group
Number
of
Samples1
# of Field OA
Samples:
Dups & Blanks
(Bottle/Rinsate/
Lot/Filter)
MS/
MSD
Samples
Matrix
Method
Method
Detection
Limits
Accuracy
Precision
(RPD)
Complete-
ness
Preservation
Volume,
Container
Holding
Time
(days)
Mobile Laboratory Measurements
Fecal Coliform
Mobile Lab or
Contract lab
10% duporl
per day
NA
Water/
sludge
9221C, E
1 MPN/
100 ml
1 MPN/
100 ml
varies
95
Cool on ice
Use sample
from Fecal
Coliform
6 hours3
E. Coli
Mobile Lab or
Contract Lab
10% duporl
per day
NA
Water/
sludge
9221 F or
9223 DQ
1 MPN/
100 ml
1 MPN/
100 ml
varies
95
Cool on ice
Use sample
from Fecal
Coliform
6 hours3
Fixed Laboratory Measurements
TKN4
10% duporl
per day
Water/
sludge
351.2
0.2 mg/ L
75-125%
+ 20RPD
95
Cool on Ice
H2SO4 <2
250 mLP, G6
28 days
Nitrate-Nitrite
10% duporl
per day
Water/
sludge
353.2
0.2 mg/ L
75-125%
+ 20RPD
95
Cool on Ice
H2SO4 <2
250 mLP, G6
28 days
Total
Phosphorus
10% duporl
per day
Water/
sludge
365.1
0.01
mg/L
75-125%
+ 20RPD
95
Cool on Ice
H2SO4 <2
250 mLP, G6
28 days
BOD
10% duporl
per day
Water/
sludge
5210B
4 mg/L
NA
+ 20RPD
95
Cool on Ice
2,500 mL P. G
(may use 1
gal
cubitainer)
48 hours (receipt
at lab by noon on
last day of
collection)
Potassium
10% duporl
per day
Water/
sludge
200.7
0.7 mg/ L
75-125%
+ 20RPD
95
Cool on Ice
HNO3 <25
250 mL P, G
180 days
Appendix AN - Page 845
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Table 3 - Data Quality Objectives Summary
Analytical
Group
Number
of
Samples1
# of Field OA
Samples:
Dups & Blanks
(Bottle/Rinsate/
Lot/Filter)
MS/
MSD
Samples
Matrix
Method
Method
Detection
Limits
Accuracy
Precision
(RPD)
Complete-
ness
Preservation
Volume,
Container
Holding
Time
(days)
Field Measurements (optional - water samples only)
Dissolved
Oxygen
10% duporl
per day
Water
360.1
0.1 mg/L
0.2 mg/L
+ 20 RPD
100
Not
Required
500 ml G
Analyze
Immediately
Turbidity
Mobile Lab
10% duporl
per day
Water
180.1
0.1 NTU
0.5 NTU
+ 20 RPD
100
Cool on Ice
100 mL
48 hours
PH
10% duporl
per day
Water
150.1
0.1 pH
Units
0.1 pH
Units
+ 0.2 pH
Units
100
Not
Required
100 ml P, G
Analyze
Immediately
Temperature
10% duporl
per day
Water
2250B
0.1 bc
0.3
+ 20 RPD
100
Not
Required
Not Required
Analyze
Immediately
1 - Sample number includes QA samples and Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) samples listed in the next two columns. P, G - Plastic, Glass.
2" Sodium thiosulfate
3" Non-potable water samples have a 6 hour holding time from the time of sample collection until receipt at the laboratory. Additional 2 hours holding time are
allowed from the verified time of sample receipt in the lab until the samples are seeded into an inoculation broth.
4"Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
5"Due to shipping restrictions on nitric acid, preservation for potassium may be performed at the lab and the sample held for 18-24 hours prior to sub-
sampling.
6- Samples for NO3+NO2, TKN, and Total Phosphorus may be combined in one sample container however the required volume increases. Use a 1L P,G bottle if
combining nutrients.
Appendix AN - Page 846
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Attachment 1-Sample Alteration Form
Project Name and Number:
Sample Matrix:
Measurement Parameter:
Standard Procedure for Field Collection & Laboratory Analysis (cite reference):
Reason for Change in Field Procedure or Analysis Variation:
Variation from Field or Analytical Procedure:
Special Equipment, Materials or Personnel Required:
Initiators Name: Date:
Project Officer: Date:
Quality Staff: Date:
Appendix AN - Page 847
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Attachment 2-Corrective Action Form
Project Name and Number:
Sample Dates Involved:
Measurement Parameter:
Acceptable Data Range:
Problem Areas Requiring Corrective Action:
Measures Required to Correct Problem(s):
Means of Detecting Problems and Verifying Correction:
Initiators Name: Date:
Project Officer: Date:
Quality Staff: Date:
Appendix AN - Page 848
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
CAFO Inspection Generic QAPP
Appendix A: Site-Specific Inspection Plan (CSSIP)
This CSSIP will be prepared and used in conjunction with the Generic CAFO QAPP for collecting
samples of opportunity during announced and unannounced inspections. Please refer to the
Generic QAPP for specific details regarding CSSIP.
Project Code(s)
Sample Numbers
EPA Inspectors/Phone Numbers/Mail Stop
(As noted below)
(Assigned in blocks of 50
sample IDs per Project
Code)
OOPERATING AGENCIES/PARTI
ES INVOLVED:
Contact Person
Agency
Phone
L ST OF FACILITIES INSPECTED:
Facility Name
Assigned
Project
Code
Address
Contact
person
E-
mail/phone
Number
#
Samples
Collecte
d*
*Samples Collected is an estimate prior to the inspection and will be submitted in final form after the inspection is
complete.
Parameter(s) to be tested (should match entries on DQO Table):
Appendix AN - Page 849
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
TENTA TIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE:
Activity
Est. Start Date
Est. Completion
Date
Comments
Mobilize to Site
Sample Collection
Laboratory Receipt of
Samples
Target Completion Date
DATA DISTRIBUTION:
Name and Mail Stop
Electronic
Hard Copy
Appendix AN - Page 850
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Concurrence with the CSSIP:
QA Chemist: Date:
Name and Signature
Inspector: Date:
Name and Signature
Instructions
<lnsert Region specific instructions>
CSSIP Page 2 - Table of Data Quality Objectives Summary
Analytica
1
Group
Numb
er of
Sampl
es1
# of Field
QA
Samples:
Dups &
Blanks
(Bottle/Rin
sate/ Lot
/Filter)
MS/
MSD
Samp
les
Mat
rix
Meth
od
Metho
d
Detect
ion
Limits
Accur
acy
Precisi
on
(RPD)
Comple
te-
ness
Preserva
tion
Volume
Contain
er
Holding
Time
(days)
Mobile Laboratory Measurements
Fecal
Coliform
Mobile
Lab or
Contract
lab
10% dup or
1 per day
NA
Wat
er/
slud
ge
9221
C, E
1
MPN/
100 ml
1
MPN/
100
ml
varies
95
Cool on
ice
Use
sample
from
Fecal
Colifor
m
6 hours3
E. Coli
Mobile
Lab or
Contract
Lab
10% dup or
1 per day
NA
Wat
er/
slud
ge
9221
F or
9223
DQ
1 MPN
/
100 ml
1
MPN/
100
ml
varies
95
Cool on
ice
Use
sample
from
Fecal
Colifor
m
6 hours3
Fixed Laboratory Measurements
TKN 4
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er/
slud
ge
351.2
0.2
mg/L
75-
125%
+
20RPD
95
Cool on
Ice
H2SO4 <2
250 mL
P, G6
28 days
Nitrate-
Nitrite
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er/
slud
ge
353.2
0.2
mg/L
75-
125%
+
20RPD
95
Cool on
Ice
H2SO4 <2
250 mL
P, G6
28 days
Total
Phosphor
us
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er/
slud
ge
365.1
0.01
mg/L
75-
125%
+
20RPD
95
Cool on
Ice
H2SO4 <2
250 mL
P, G6
28 days
Appendix AN - Page 851
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Analytica
1
Group
Numb
er of
Sampl
es1
# of Field
QA
Samples:
Dups &
Blanks
(Bottle/Rin
sate/ Lot
/Filter)
MS/
MSD
Samp
les
Mat
rix
Meth
od
Metho
d
Detect
ion
Limits
Accur
acy
Precisi
on
(RPD)
Comple
te-
ness
Preserva
tion
Volume
Contain
er
Holding
Time
(days)
BOD
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er/
slud
ge
5210
B
4 mg/L
NA
+
20RPD
95
Cool on
Ice
2,500
mLP.G
(may
use 1
gal
cubitai
ner)
48 hours
(receipt
at lab by
noon on
last day
of
collectio
n)
Potassiu
m
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er/
slud
ge
200.7
0.7
mg/L
75-
125%
+
20RPD
95
Cool on
Ice
HNO3
<25
250 mL
P, G
180 days
Field Measurements (optional - water samples only)
Dissolved
Oxygen
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er
360.1
0.1
mg/L
0.2
mg/L
±20
RPD
100
Not
Required
500 ml
G
Analyze
Immedia
tely
Turbidity
Mobile
Lab
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er
180.1
0.1
NTU
0.5
NTU
±20
RPD
100
Cool on
Ice
100 mL
48 hours
PH
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er
150.1
0.1 pH
Units
0.1 pH
Units
+ 0.2
PH
Units
100
Not
Required
100 ml
P, G
Analyze
Immedia
tely
Tempera
ture
10% dup or
1 per day
Wat
er
2250
B
0.1 bc
0.3
±20
RPD
100
Not
Required
Not
Require
d
Analyze
Immedia
tely
1 - Sample number includes QA samples and Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) samples listed in the
next two columns. P, G - Plastic, Glass.
2" Sodium thiosulfate
3 " Non-potable water samples have a 6 hour holding time from the time of sample collection until receipt at the
laboratory. Additional 2 hours holding time are allowed from the verified time of sample receipt in the lab until the
samples are seeded into an inoculation broth.
4"Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
5"Due to shipping restrictions on nitric acid, preservation for potassium may be performed at the lab and the
sample held for 18-24 hours prior to sub-sampling.
6- Samples for NO3+NO2, TKN, and Total Phosphorus may be combined in one sample container however the
required volume increases. Use a 1L P,G bottle if combining nutrients.
Appendix AN - Page 852
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AO -
Detailed Review of Nutrient
Management Plan Implementation
Appendix AO - Page 853
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF NMP IMPLEMENTATION
Evaluation of the calculations and records associated with the NMP typically will focus on the
site-specific terms of the NMP that have been incorporated as conditions of the CAFO's permit.
NMP review of the land application elements will focus on the nutrient transport risk
assessment, rate calculations, and land application records.
When evaluating the land application requirements of the NMP, use the elements in Table 1 to
help identify potential compliance alerts and clarification questions to ask the facility.
Table 1: NMP Land Application Records and
Recordkeeping Expectations
NMP Records to be Reviewed
Expectation for What Will be Recorded
How much manure does the CAFO
generate each year?
This information is used to determine if the
CAFO has adequate storage and land
application fields or if manure must be
transferred off-site.
If the CAFO does not land apply manure,
can they produce manure transfer records
to account for disposal of all manure?
Manure transfer records should account for
all manure generated. The CAFO must also
have manure test results provided to each
manure hauler.
How many land application fields under
the CAFO's control are used and what is
the total acreage?
Amount of manure land applied divided by
available acreage approximates the weight
of manure applied per acre.
Does every acre receive manure every
year or are the fields rotated? If rotated,
does the CAFO have a quantitative
approach to determine which fields
receive manure each year?
If the CAFO is relying on multiyear
phosphorus application,40 they must be able
to demonstrate that they are not over
applying in frequency or amount.
Are setbacks or buffers from down
gradient surface waters documented and
implemented?
The CAFO representative will need to
identify which fields have buffers or
setbacks and show at least one of these to
the inspector.
Do NMP records account for all forms of
manure present at the CAFO (solid, slurry,
and liquid)?
If the CAFOs sampling is representative,
nutrient application will be based on sample
results from all forms of manure. Otherwise,
the CAFO may over- or under-apply as a
result of not accounting for nutrients in all
manure forms.
Does the CAFO have recent sampling and
analysis records for all manure sources?
Nutrient application rates must be based on
the most recent manure nutrient results. If
manure nutrient content changes
significantly from values used in the nutrient
40 For a discussion of multiyear phosphorus application refer to section 6.3 of EPA's Permit Writers' Manual for
CAFOs (February 2012).
Appendix AO - Page 854
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
NMP Records to be Reviewed
Expectation for What Will be Recorded
management plan, the nutrient
management plan should be updated to
reflect the new values.
Does the CAFO have recent soil sampling
and analysis records, P risk assessments,
and rate calculations for all fields currently
receiving or scheduled to receive manure?
Non-recent of these may not reflect current
conditions and result in over- or under-
application of nutrients and potential
environmental harm from offsite transport
of phosphorus in runoff.
What crops are planted or planned for
nutrient application fields and what are
the nutrient uptake rates for these crops?
Different crops have different nutrient
uptake rates and timing considerations for
nutrient applications. The CAFO should base
application rate calculation on book value
nutrient uptake rates specific to the state or
region, or actual uptake rates based on
recent plant tissue samples. In the latter
case, the CAFO should provide laboratory
reports in support of the results. The
inspector should field-verify the crops being
grown in one or more land application fields.
Appendix 1 contains photos of the growth
stages of common field crops.
Nutrient Application Rate Calculations
For permitted CAFOs, the permit writer will have already ensured that the methodology used to
calculate rates in the NMP is consistent with the permit and applicable technical standards. The
inspector's job is to verify that the actual manure application rates are being calculated in
accordance with the NMP methodology. This determination will depend on whether the NMP
terms were developed in accordance with the linear or narrative rate approach as discussed
below.
Terms Applicable to Linear and Narrative Rate Approaches
Fields Available for Land Application
The NMP will identify each field where land application is planned. The inspector should
compare the land application records with the fields identified in the NMP to ensure manure,
litter, or process wastewater were not applied to fields that are not covered by the plan. Use of
a land application site that is not identified in the NMP constitutes non-compliance with a
permit term. Also, addition of a land application site not covered by an approved NMP
constitutes a substantial change to the NMP that requires a permit modification with
associated permitting authority review and public notice.
Appendix AO - Page 855
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Timing Limitations for Land Application
As described in Chapter 6.5.1 of the Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs this term refers to
limitations described in the technical standards for when manure applications should be
prohibited or delayed. The inspector should check land application records to see if the
applicable timing limitations are being
followed. In some cases this will be a straight-
forward evaluation. Often, however,
evaluating compliance will require the
inspector and case officer to use professional
judgment and diverse resources, as illustrated
by the examples below.
EXAMPLE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION FOR
TIMING LIMITATIONS
Example Timing Limitation
Manure shall not be spread between
December 1 and March 15.
Compliance Evaluation
Check land application dates to ensure
manure has not been spread during the
restricted time frame.
Example Timing Limitation
Delay field application of animal manures or
organic by-products if precipitation capable of
producing runoff and erosion is forecast
within 24 hours of the time of the planned
application.
Complignce Evglugtion
Compare land application dates with local precipitation records. If precipitation occurred within
a day of land application, additional evaluation may be warranted to determine whether:
1) The precipitation was capable of producing runoff and erosion. In some cases this may be
determined using on-site records, though these types of records are not common. Several
modeling tools are available to predict soil erosion based on precipitation events and field
conditions including, but not limited to:
• Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model
(http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=10621)
• CREAMS, A field scale model for Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural
Management Systems
• Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response Simulator (ANSWERS)
S Does the CAFO have current soil and manure
test results for the field and source of manure
applied?
SAre the calculations for planned manure
application rates consistent with the NMP
methodology?
SAre actual manure application rates consistent
with calculated rates?
SAre the total nutrient applications (from
manure and other sources) consistent with crop
nutrient recommendations?
S Did the CAFO perform a phosphorus index risk
assessment for the field?
S Is the CAFO applying phosphorus at a rate
consistent with the phosphorus transport risk
assessment?
S Was manure applied on the same day as, or the
day before, a significant rain event?
It is usually easiest and least expensive for a CAFO
to apply manure to the field nearest the manure
Appendix AO - Page 856
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• AGNPS model (http://go.usa.gov/KFO)
2) The precipitation was forecast at the time of application. There are many sources of
historical weather information; unfortunately, historical weather forecasts are more difficult to
obtain. If local newspaper archives are available, these may be a resource for determining the
forecast for a specific date.
If these two pieces of information can be determined, the inspector and case officer then
would have to use professional judgment to deduce whether the CAFO operator should
reasonably have been aware that precipitation capable of producing runoff and erosion was
forecast within 24 hours at the time the manure was applied. Because the analysis is resource-
intensive and somewhat subjective, retrospective compliance determination for this type of
timing limitation may not be practical. If an inspector is concerned that the CAFO operator may
be applying manure without consideration for timing limitations, real-time monitoring might be
a better method for evaluating compliance. Records obtained during an on-site inspection can
be used to predict typical application schedules for a particular operation. It may be beneficial
to conduct drive-by inspections during these time frames when significant rainfall is predicted
to determine whether land application is occurring.
Example Timing Limitation
Wastewater shall not be applied when the ground is frozen or saturated or during rainfall
events.
Compliance Evaluation
Determining whether manure or wastewater was applied during rainfall events is relatively
straightforward but may require some judgment or interpretation. The inspector can compare
land application dates with local precipitation records. CAFOs often maintain daily precipitation
logs. Alternatively, Internet resources such as The Weather Underground
(www.weatherunderground.com) and Utah Climate Center
(http://climate.usurf.usu.edu/products/data.php) can be used to determine whether a rainfall
event occurred, at least at a nearby weather station, on a specific date. Unless the data
document the time of application and precipitation, it might not be possible to positively
determine whether the two events were concurrent, but the inspector and case officer can use
information such as the magnitude of the rainfall, whether rainfall occurred on the previous
and/or subsequent days, the amount of manure or wastewater applied, and other
circumstantial data to assess the likelihood that manure or wastewater was applied during a
rainfall event.
Evaluating whether wastewater was applied on frozen or saturated ground is more complex.
Many variables such as season, latitude, altitude, proximity of lakes and rivers, and local
landscape, can affect when soils freeze and thaw. To predict soil saturation the inspector and
case officer would need information on soil types including antecedent soil moisture, hydraulic
conductivity, infiltration rate, and precipitation and irrigation history. Here again, the
evaluation is time-consuming and because it is not based on direct observation may not result
in a positive determination of non-compliance. If the land application records for a facility
Appendix AO - Page 857
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
suggest the CAFO operator is applying wastewater to frozen or snow-covered ground, it may be
more effective for an inspector to visit CAFOs under those conditions to observe whether land
application is occurring.
Outcome of the Field-Specific Assessment of the Potential for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Transport from
Each Field
The inspector should ensure the calculated land application rates are consistent with the rate
recommendation from the technical standards based on the outcome of the risk assessment.
Some states require CAFOs to use a nitrogen leaching index or other tool to assess the risk of
nitrogen movement to groundwater. Where such a tool is required and strictly focuses on
groundwater protection, use of the tool is not a federally enforceable requirement under the
NPDES program. However, where there is a direct hydrologic link from groundwater to surface
waters and a nitrogen leaching risk assessment is required as part of the technical standards for
nutrient management, the inspector should check to ensure that any rate limitations or
management practice specifications associated with the outcome of the leaching index are
being implemented.
CAFO inspectors should be familiar with the phosphorus risk assessment tool required by the
applicable technical standards for nutrient management. Often, this will be the state's
Phosphorus Index (P Index), but could also be a soil test phosphorus method, a phosphorus
environmental threshold, or other similar assessment tool. Where the risk assessment for a
field indicates that manure application should be restricted to a phosphorus-based rate, any
application exceeding that rate is inappropriate unless the state allows multi-year phosphorus
application. Where rates are P-limited and multi-year P applications are made, the inspector
should review the land application records to ensure the applications are consistent with all
restrictions associated with the multi-year P flexibility (e.g., no additional P applied until the P
applied in single year has been removed through uptake and harvest, the total multi-year rate
does not exceed the single-year N recommendation, location or timing restrictions).
The inspector should also check to see that the risk assessment rating is being re-calculated at
appropriate intervals. Some state technical standards may specify re-calculation at a specific
frequency or based on specific triggers. Even if the permit or technical standards do not
specifically require re-calculation of the risk assessment outcome, the inspector should be
aware of circumstances under which a field should be re-assessed. These circumstances will
depend on the specific risk assessment used. In general, where there is a change in any of the
factors used in calculating the risk of nutrient transport, the risk should be re-assessed. For
example, many P Indices account for the conservation practices implemented on a field when
evaluating the risk of nutrient transport from that field. If the CAFO operator changes the
conservation practices used on a field, then the P Index for that field should be re-calculated.
Any change to a field that might reasonably result in an increase in the nutrient transport risk
could be considered a trigger for recalculating that field's risk assessment.
In states that allow use of more than one type of phosphorus risk assessment, the inspector
should check to be sure that the assessment tool used in the NMP submitted with the
application for permit coverage is used throughout the permit term. A CAFO may not switch to
Appendix AO - Page 858
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
a different risk assessment method during the permit term unless the permit is revised to
reflect the new term for the outcome of the field specific assessment, as this would trigger a
substantial permit modification. See Chapter 4.1.7 of the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for
CAFOs (EPA, 2012a).
The examples below illustrate compliance evaluations for the most common types of risk
assessment tools:
Example: Nitrogen Leaching Index Outcome
Net Score: 13
Risk Interpretation: This field has a HIGH risk for nitrogen leaching and management changes
should be implemented to decrease risk. Manure should be applied at P agronomic rates. Apply
nitrogen using split in-season applications at or below the agronomic rate. Changes in irrigation
management and/or method may also be necessary. If there is an underlying aquifer that is
shallow (< 20 ft.) or used locally as a public drinking water source, increase the risk to VERY
HIGH. [Colorado NRCS. 2006, Colorado Nitrogen Leaching Index Risk Assessment (Version 2.0).
Agronomy Technical Note No. 97 (revised), August 25, 2006.
<http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CO/COATN_97v2.pdf >)
Complignce Evglugtion
Terms like "should" and "may be necessary" complicate compliance evaluation for this type of
requirement. The inspector and case officer will need to use professional judgment to
determine what practices, including phosphorus-based rates and irrigation management
changes, the CAFO operator should reasonably be expected to implement. In this case, split in-
season nitrogen application is required; the inspector should review the NMP and land
application records to ensure that this practice is used. If inorganic nitrogen sources (e.g.,
anhydrous ammonia, urea) are used, the inspector should keep in mind that the entire manure
nitrogen contribution may be applied at one time. Local recommendations for practices like
split nitrogen application can be used as guidelines for evaluating compliance if the practices
are not covered in the technical standards for nutrient management; Land Grant Universities
are good sources for recommendations on agricultural practices.
Exgmple: Soil Test Phosphorus Level
Soil test phosphorus level (Bray Pl/Mehlich 3 ppm): 63 ppm
Basis for nutrient application: Not to exceed 1.5 x crop P2O5 removal [Indiana NRCS. 2001.
Conservation Practice Standard, Nutrient Management, Code 590. Indiana Natural Resources
Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide—July 2001.]
Complignce Evglugtion
The inspector should verify that the soil test phosphorus result used to determine the basis for
nutrient application is current and based on the appropriate extraction method. Next, the
inspector should evaluate the calculated land application rates to verify that the planned
application does not exceed 1.5 times the crop P2O5 removal rate.
Appendix AO - Page 859
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Example: Soil Phosphorus Threshold Level
Soil test phosphorus threshold: 40 ppm (Olsen), 60 ppm (Bray-1), 6 ppm (Morgan)
Soil test phosphorus level: 50 ppm (Olsen)
Phosphorus application rate: Crop rotational phosphorus uptake [Idaho NRCS. 2007.
Conservation Practice Standard, Nutrient
Management, Code 590. Idaho Natural Resources
Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide-
June 2007.]
Compliance Evaluation
The inspector should verify that the soil test
phosphorus result used to determine the basis for
nutrient application is current and based on the
appropriate extraction method. Next, the inspector
should check the calculated land application rates to
verify that the planned application does not exceed the
crop phosphorus uptake rate.
Example: Phosphorus Index
Phosphorus index value and risk rating: 12, Medium
risk
Recommended rate basis: Nitrogen-based application
Compliance Evaluation
If not already done during the permitting process, the
inspector should review the factors used to calculate
the P Index value to ensure the values appear to
reasonably reflect site conditions. Those factors might
include soil erosion, runoff class, soil test phosphorus,
phosphorus application rates, and conservation
practices. Factors like soil test phosphorus, application
rates, and conservation practices can be checked
against facility records. Others, like runoff class or other soil properties, can be checked against
soil surveys (available through NRCS's Web Soil Survey:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm). Soil erosion is usually calculated
using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, version 1 (RUSLE2). RUSLE2 is a computer model
that uses a detailed mathematical approach for integrating multiple equations that describe
how certain factors affect soil erosion. Appendix A of the NPDES Permit Writers' Guide for
CAFOs contains a detailed discussion of RUSLE2. The inspector also should evaluate calculated
land application rates to ensure that the planned nitrogen application does not exceed the
recommendation.
The inspector should be aware of i
differences between the several types of ¦
phosphorus recommendations that may be
seen.
• Soil test phosphorus
recommendation: A recommendation
for the amount of additional
phosphorus needed in the soil to
ensure an optimal level of
phosphorus to support achievement
of maximum potential crop yield.
• Phosphorus crop uptake: The amount
of phosphorus a crop will take up
from the soil during its life cycle.
• Phosphorus crop removal: The
amount of phosphorus that will be
removed from the field through crop
uptake and harvest. This amount may
be less than the phosphorus crop
uptake amount since a portion of the
plant may remain in the field after
harvest and the nutrients in the crop
residue returned to the soil.
Appendix AO - Page 860
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Planned Crop or Other Use
The rate calculations in the NMP are based on the crop or
crop rotation planned for each field. The inspector should
evaluate land application records to ensure the crops actually
grown in the field are the same as the crops that were
planned for that field during that year. The only exception
would be for the use of alternative crops included in the NMP,
which is discussed below as a term for the narrative rate
approach.
Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus Recommendations for Each Crop
During the permitting process, the permit writer will evaluate these recommendations to
ensure they are consistent with the planned crops and yields in accordance with the technical
standards for nutrient management. For the total nitrogen recommendation and phosphorus
recommendations based on crop uptake or removal, this permitting evaluation is adequate. For
a total phosphorus recommendation that is based on soil test phosphorus levels, the inspector
can check the facility records for the soil phosphorus analysis used as the basis for the
recommendation included in the NMP. Specifically, the inspector can check to see if the
analysis uses the appropriate extraction method as specified in the technical standard for
nutrient management, that the soil sample was taken at the correct depth (see Soil Sampling in
Chapter 5.9.2 of the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a)), and that the
analysis reports phosphorus in the same form as used in the soil test recommendation.
Phosphorus is commonly reported as either elemental phosphorus (or total P) or phosphorus
pentoxide (P2O5). Total P can be converted to P2O5 as follows: P2O5 = P x 2.29.
Realistic Annual Yield Goals
The realistic yield goal is an estimated potential for crop yield for a given field. The total
nutrient requirements for fields are largely based on the CAFOs expected crop yields; generally,
the higher the yield expectation, the higher the nutrient requirement. An unrealistic estimate
can result in either a deficiency or an excess of nutrients being applied. In addition to crop
variety and climate, crop yields are influenced by field-specific factors including, among others,
soil fertility, soil type, crop management and pest control. Thus, estimated yields can be
expected to vary for different fields. State technical standards for nutrient management need
to identify acceptable methods and data sources for establishing realistic yield goals. One way
to establish realistic yield goals is to use the average of the three highest yields of the five most
recent years that the specific crop was grown in the field. For new operations where production
records are not available, CAFOs may need to use information available through county NRCS
field offices or from local farmers.
Terms Applicable to the Linear Approach
Credits for Plant Available Nitrogen in the Field
Under the linear approach, the credits from the nitrogen that will be available to the crop from
all other sources are terms. These other sources include nitrogen credits from mineralization
and legumes.
The inspector should check on-
site records, where available,
to ensure that actual yields are
consistent with the yield goals
used in the NMP.
Appendix AO - Page 861
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Nitrogen credits are a term even for a field with a phosphorus-based rate because the nitrogen
credit is needed to calculate the appropriate amount of supplemental nitrogen to be added to
the field to ensure that the crop's nitrogen requirement is not exceeded.
Consideration of Multi-Year Phosphorus Application
Where a phosphorus-based rate is required, technical standards for nutrient management
might allow several years' worth of phosphorus to be applied in a single application. For an
NMP that includes multi-year phosphorus application, the permit term will identify the field,
crop, and year for the application. Where allowed, a multi-year phosphorus application should
not exceed the nitrogen recommendation for the year of the application, and no additional
phosphorus should be applied until the amount supplied in the multi-year application is
removed through crop uptake and harvest. Technical standards for nutrient management might
include additional restrictions or requirements for where or when such applications are allowed
and what practices must be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient loss from a multi-year
phosphorus application. The inspector should evaluate land application records to verify that
multi-year applications did not occur during any year or on any field or crop not identified in the
NMP. For any field where a multi-year application was used, the inspector should also
determine the number of years covered by the application and check to see that phosphorus
was removed during the subsequent years through harvest as specified in the NMP and that no
additional phosphorus was applied for the number of years covered by the multi-year
application. In addition, the inspector should check for implementation of any specifications for
multi-year in the permit or technical standards for nutrient management.
For example, Illinois' General NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(Permit No. ILA01) requires site-specific practices, determined through assessment procedures
to be specified in the NMP, to minimize runoff of P applied to land in a multi-year P application.
For a permitted CAFO in Illinois, the inspector should first determine that the assessment
procedures specified in the NMP were followed and ascertain the practices that were identified
as a result of the assessment. Then the inspector should check to see if those practices were
implemented to minimize phosphorus runoff from the multi-year phosphorus application.
Accounting for All Other Additions of Plant Available Nitrogen and Phosphorus
As described in the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual for CAFOs (EPA, 2012a), this term captures
all non-manure nutrient sources (e.g., chemical fertilizers, biosolids, and nutrients in irrigation
water). The permit term will identify the "other additions" that are planned for each field and
crop for each year of permit coverage. The inspector should evaluate land application records
to see if only the nutrient sources identified in the NMP were actually applied to the field. It is
important to note that the term does not obligate the CAFO operator to use a specific nutrient
source. So, for example, if the NMP indicates that Field X will receive nitrogen from process
wastewater and irrigation water in a certain year but the land application records indicate that
only manure was applied, the permit term has not been violated. However, for the same
scenario, if the land application records indicate that process wastewater and anhydrous
ammonia were applied, the facility would be out of compliance with the permit term because
the NMP had not accounted for the use of anhydrous ammonia.
Appendix AO - Page 862
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
In addition, the term does not limit the amount of nutrients supplied through "other additions."
For example, a CAFO's NMP indicates that Field X will receive 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre
from process wastewater and 50 pounds per acre of nitrogen from irrigation water. However,
rainfall was lower than average and the CAFO operator had to irrigate more than anticipated,
thereby supplying more nitrogen from irrigation water than expected. The term accounting for
all other additions of plant available nitrogen and phosphorus is not violated because additional
nitrogen was applied from irrigation water. However, in this case the inspector would need to
check that the amount of nitrogen supplied from process wastewater was decreased
accordingly so that the total nitrogen application did not exceed the term total nitrogen
recommendation for each crop.
Form and Source of Manure that Is Land Applied
The inspector should compare the form and source of manure to be applied to each field and
crop, identified in permit terms, with the land application records to see if the planned form(s)
and source(s) were used.
Timing and Method of Land Application
The permit term for timing should be as specific as needed to reflect how the timing impacts
nutrient availability in the application rate calculation. Therefore, the inspector should rely on
the permit term, and not necessarily the application timing specified in the NMP to evaluate
compliance. The specificity of the term will be guided by the state technical standards for
nutrient management and, largely, the nitrogen availability factors that are required. For
example, many states provide a single availability factor or mineralization rate for seasonal (i.e.,
fall or spring) application. In those states, the permit term might simply specify fall or spring
application. In some cases, a permit term might be as specific as "within two weeks before
planting." In most cases the CAFO's NMP will include a specific date for planned applications
since most nutrient management planning programs require a specific date. EPA does not
expect permit terms to require a specific application date. The compliance evaluation depends
on the term that was identified for timing of land application. The inspector must make sure
the actual nutrient applications identified in the facility records are consistent with the permit
term.
The permit term for method of application will specify at least whether the surface or
subsurface application is planned and may be as specific as identifying the type of equipment
that will be used. The term should also reflect whether the manure is to be incorporated within
a certain time frame. The CAFO inspector should evaluate land application records to see if the
actual method of application, including time to incorporation, is consistent with the planned
method reflected in the permit term.
Maximum Amount of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Manure, Litter and Process Wastewater
The permit term will be expressed as the maximum pounds per acre of nitrogen that may be
applied to each field for each year of permit coverage. The term will also include a maximum
amount of phosphorus, in pounds per acre per year, for fields where application is limited to
phosphorus-based rates. The inspector should evaluate land application records to see if the
actual amount of nitrogen (or nitrogen and phosphorus where applicable) applied did not
Appendix AO - Page 863
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
exceed the amount specified in the permit term. The inspector should verify that the land
application records document nutrient application using the same chemical forms used in the
permit term.
Methodology to Account for the Amount of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Manure to be Applied
For the linear approach, only the actual amount of manure, litter, or process wastewater to be
applied should vary on an annual basis since the maximum amount of N and P to be applied
from manure is a permit term. The NMP and permit term should describe the specific
methodology used to make this calculation. The amount of manure to be applied will depend
on the results of the annual manure analysis and the calculation will be similar to the following:
Pounds of N or P to be applied per acre
Pounds of N or P per ton or gallon of manure
= Tons or gallons of manure to be applied per acre
The inspector should check the CAFO's records to verify that the amount of manure to be
applied was calculated in accordance with the methodology specified in the permit term. In
general, the following information will be needed to make this determination using the formula
above:
• Maximum amount of N (and P as applicable) from manure, litter, and process
wastewater. This is a permit term and should be identified in the permit
• Pounds of N (and P as applicable) per ton or gallon of manure: The source for this
data is the result of the manure analysis used to calculate the manure application
rates. The inspector should check to be sure that the analysis is for a recent sample,
taken no more than 12 months before the date of application, and that the analysis
is representative of the material applied. Most importantly, the sample should
represent the actual source of the manure, litter, or process wastewater applied. A
sample may represent multiple sources (i.e., storage structures) only if the manure
sources and management structures for those two sources are so similar as to
support a reasonable expectation that that the nutrient content of the manure will
be the same.
Consider, for example, two dairies, each with a milking parlor, outdoor confinement
areas, a solids separator, and two impoundments. At Dairy A, all process wastewater,
including wash water from the milking parlor, flush water from the feed lane, and runoff
from the pens flows to the solids separator. Effluent from the separator can be directed
to either of the two impoundments; the dairy allows one impoundment to fill and then
directs wastewater to the second impoundment while the first is being emptied.
Because the contents of each impoundment are from the same source and managed the
same, it is reasonable to expect that a wastewater taken from one impoundment would
represent the nutrient content of both impoundments. At Dairy B, milk parlor wash
water and feed lane flush water are directed to the separator. Effluent from the
separator can be directed to either of the two impoundments. Runoff from the pens
Appendix AO - Page 864
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
flows directly to one of the impoundments. At this dairy, it may not be reasonable to
expect that wastewater from both impoundments would have the same nutrient
content since one impoundment receives wastewater from a source that is significantly
different from the other (runoff from the pens).
The inspector should also make sure that the pounds of N or P per ton or gallon of manure used
to calculate the amount of manure to apply is expressed using the same chemical form as
provided on the manure analysis or has been calculated or converted appropriately. For
nitrogen-based application rates, planners and CAFO operators often calculate the amount of
plant available nitrogen in the manure to be applied. This is calculated by adding the inorganic
forms (typically ammonium and nitrate) and the portion of organic nitrogen that will be
available in the first year after application (based on the mineralization rates specified in the
technical standards).
Terms Applicable to Narrative Rate Approach
Maximum Amount of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from All Sources of Nutrients
Different than the linear approach where land application rates are expressed in terms of the
amount of nutrients to be applied from manure, the narrative rate approach sets an upper limit
on the amount of nutrients to be applied from all sources. The term is the maximum amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus derived from all sources of nutrients for each crop identified in the
NMP in chemical forms determined to be acceptable to the Director, in pounds per acre, for
each field. In the narrative rate approach, the maximum limit is identified only for each crop but
does not need to be reported each year that the crop is planted.
The maximum amount of nitrogen from all sources under the narrative rate approach is based
on the maximum amount of nitrogen that can be applied to a field for the specified crop based
on crop type, yield goal, and current nitrogen soil test - where required. The maximum amount
of nitrogen from all sources is the same value reported for the term, total crop nitrogen
recommendation.
The maximum amount of phosphorus from all sources can be set for each crop according to the
maximum amount of phosphorus applied in any one year for any one crop based on the
outcome of the field-specific risk assessment. This preserves the flexibility of the narrative rate
approach. Because the phosphorus site index changes with different crops and years, different
rates of manure can be applied according to P-lndex recommended rates. Manure may be
applied at N-based rates for some years and crops and P-based rates for other years and crops.
EXAMPLE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION:
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS FROM ALL SOURCES OF NUTRIENTS
Compliance Evaluation
To evaluate this term, the inspector will check to see if a total crop nutrient recommendation
exists for each crop included in the NMP. The total nutrients land applied must not exceed the
calculated total crop nutrient recommendations for a specific crop.
Appendix AO - Page 865
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Compliance Issues
• Nutrients applied from all sources exceed the total crop nutrient recommendation
calculated for a specific crop.
• The CAFO did not calculate the maximum amount of nutrients that can be applied to
a specific crop.
• The CAFO did not account for crop type, yield goal and current soil test when
determining the total crop nitrogen recommendation.
• The CAFO did not conduct a field-specific risk assessment when determining the
total crop phosphorus recommendation.
Alternative Crops
The narrative rate approach allows for greater
flexibility than the linear approach by allowing
the NMP to include alternative crops that may
be planted in lieu of those included in the
planned rotation. If alternative crops are
included, the NMP must also identify for each
alternative crop realistic yield goals and nitrogen
and phosphorus recommendations. The term
includes the alternative crops listed in the NMP,
along with their associated yield goals and
nitrogen and phosphorus recommendations.
EXAMPLE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION:
ALTERNATIVE CROPS
Example: At CAFO A the north field typically is
planted in wheat. However, when wheat prices
drop, CAFO A plants alfalfa. CAFO A must include
wheat and alfalfa plus their respectively yield
goals and, nitrogen and phosphorus
recommendations in the NMP.
Compliance Evaluation
The inspector should verify that any crop listed in CAFO A's land application records or actual
crop(s) planted in the land application areas are included in the NMP.
Compliance Issues
• The crop observed growing in a land application area is not included in the NMP.
• During the review of land application records, a crop included in the manure
application records is not listed in the NMP.
V
Credits for PAN in the field
V
Amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in
the manure to be applied
V
Consideration of multi-year
phosphorus application
V
Accounting for all other additions of
plant available nitrogen and
phosphorus to the field
V
Form and source of manure, litter and
process wastewater
V
Timing and method of land application
V
Soil test results
V
Volatilization of nitrogen and
mineralization of organic nitrogen
Appendix AO - Page 866
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Methodology
Unlike the linear approach where permit terms are factors of the methodology, the factors
themselves are not required to be terms in the narrative approach, but rather the methodology
used to account for them in the CAFO's NMP is a term. Under the narrative rate approach, the
methodology is the enforceable permit term, rather than the factors included.
As long as the methodology presented in the NMP is followed and includes all necessary
factors, the calculated amount of manure, litter, or process wastewater can change from year
to year.
EXAMPLE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION:
METHODOLOGY
Compliance Evaluation
As previously mentioned, the permit writer will have already ensured that the methodology
used to calculate rates in the NMP is consistent with the permit and applicable technical
standards. The inspector should see if the actual manure application rates are being calculated
in accordance with the NMP methodology.
The following factors must be accounted for in calculating the rates of manure application:
• Credits for Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) in the field
• Amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the manure to be applied
• Consideration of multi-year phosphorus application
• Accounting for all other additions of plant available nitrogen and phosphorus to the
field
• Form and source of manure, litter and process wastewater
• Timing and method of land application
• Soil test results
• Volatilization of nitrogen and mineralization of organic nitrogen
Compliance Issues
• CAFO is not able to document values used in the application rate calculations (e.g.,
no laboratory results for soil and manure analyses).
• Application rate calculations are based on a different methodology than presented
in the NMP.
• CAFO does not account for additional commercial fertilizer applications or other
sources of nutrients.
Records for Permitted Medium and Small CAFOs
Appendix AO - Page 867
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Permitted medium and small CAFOs are subject to the same requirements as a Large Permitted
CAFO, with the exception of the ELG. Permitted medium and small CAFOs must maintain
records to document NMP development and implementation. See Table 2 below for examples
of records that might be maintained to document implementation of the nine minimum
measures as well as potential compliance alerts suggesting non-compliance with the specific
requirements. Permitted medium and small CAFOs are not subject to the ELG. Any technology-
based requirements and associated records will be specified in the permit for a medium or
small CAFO and may be similar to the ELG requirements for large CAFOs.
Records for Unpermitted Large CAFOs
Unpermitted large CAFOs are not required to develop and implement an NMP, but are required
to maintain records documenting implementation of nutrient management practices that
address three of the nine NMP minimum measures to qualify for the agricultural stormwater
exemption. Unpermitted large CAFOs must have records indicating that they are implementing
40 CFR Part 122.42(e)(l)(vi)-(ix) on their land application sites to ensure appropriate agricultural
utilization of land applied nutrients. These practices ensure that precipitation-related
discharges from the land application areas qualify for the agricultural stormwater exemption.
As provided in Table 2 below, records must exist for measures 6 through 8.
Table 2: Example Records to Evaluate Minimum Measures
Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
Identify site-specific
conservation practices to
be implemented,
including buffers or
equivalent practices, to
control runoff of
pollutants to waters of
the United States [40 CFR
Part 122.42(e)(l)(vi)
• NMP or CNMP
• Engineering drawings or as built
drawings showing the location
and dimension of berms,
buffers, setbacks, and other
conservation practices between
land application fields or
production areas and WOUS
• Narrative descriptions of
conservation practices
implemented to control
pollutant runoff, such as NRCS
conservation practice standards
• The CAFO does not have
documentation of buffers, setbacks, or
other conservation practices to
minimize nutrient runoff to nearby
WOUS.
• Conservation practices are identified
but do not include operation and
maintenance protocols to ensure long-
term effectiveness to control pollutant
runoff.
Appendix AO - Page 868
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Measure
Example Records
Potential Compliance Alerts
Identify protocols for
appropriate testing of
manure, litter, process
wastewater, and soil [40
CFR Part 122.42(e)(l)(vii)
• NMPorCNMP
• A facility sampling plan that
identifies sampling locations,
sampling frequency, analytical
methods, and laboratories for
manure, litter, process
wastewater, and soil analysis
• Laboratory reports that identify
testing procedures and results
for manure, litter, process
wastewater, and soil
• The CAFO land applies manure or
wastewater without sampling the
nutrient content of manure and soil.
• Soil and manure analyses are not
current.
• Manure and process wastewater
analysis are not representative of all
sources that are land applied.
• Soil analyses are not available for all
fields used for land application.
• Soil or manure analytical results are not
consistent with those used to calculate
land application rates.
Establish protocols to
land apply manure, litter
or process wastewater to
ensure appropriate
agricultural utilization of
the nutrients in the
manure, litter or process
wastewater [40 CFR Part
122.42(e)(l)(viii)]
• Site map showing land
application fields
• NMPorCNMP
• Manure spreading agreements
• Manure application rate
calculations in accordance with
the methodology in the NMP
• Land application records
• Application equipment
inspection logs
• No documentation of manure
application rates, protocols, or
schedules.
• The CAFO land applies manure and/or
wastewater without agronomic rate
calculations supporting the application.
• Manure application at rates higher
than the rates calculated in accordance
with the NMP.
• Manure is applied at a constant rate
across all fields and crop types.
• Land application records are
incomplete (e.g., do not specify
manure source, amount, dates,
application method, etc.).
• Actual amount of nutrients applied is
calculated at the end of the season
rather than tracked for each
application event.
• Manure is applied to fields that are not
identified in the NMP.
Appendix AO - Page 869
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AP -
Inspection Report Template (R7)
Appendix AP - Page 870
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
INSPECTION REPORT TEMPLATE
Example: Structure for Model Inspection Report
All inspection reports should be structured and formatted is an organized way. This example
identifies each of the major sections of the report. Each section in this example report has the
purpose to communicate specific information as simply and cleanly as possible. This format can
be adapted to all types of inspection reports.
It is essential to remember that our goal is clear communication of essential information. We
can use our computers' ability to indent, bold, italics, color, change fonts, etc. to help us
construct a clear and easy to understand report. Once your master report is completed you can
use it to "cut and paste" into additional reports.
Comments: Comments are made throughout the report to highlight important points or
identify critical information. Comments are shown in brackets and [italics].
Boiler Plate: Certain sections of the report should use "boiler plate" language. This language
should be used for all inspection reports. Slight modifications may be made to accommodate
changes in inspection type.
Attachments: Attachments are to be listed in a logical order from Attachment 1, at the
beginning of the report, to Attachment 1 + n, at the end of the report. Please reference
Attachments as often as needed to clearly present your findings.
Photographs: Photographs need to be referenced, and referenced as often as needed. All
photograph numbers should match the photograph log from the field. Photo location and
direction should be noted on maps or diagrams using a circle with the photo number in it and
an arrow to note direction ( cf ).
Acronyms: All acronyms will be defined at their first use. For example: I conducted a Confined
Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) inspection at Beefmaster Feeders (BF).
Appendix AP - Page 871
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
REPORT OF CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION INSPECTION
At
BEEFMASTER FEED YARD
Rural Route 2, Box 31
Tall Prairie, Kansas
NPDES Permit Number: KS023764
[use appropriate media program ID or Permit number]
June 5,2005
By
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region VII
Enforcement Coordination Office
[The title area should be center justified, Arial font, bold, size 12, and capitalized as shown]
1.0 INTRODUCTION [All section headings should be left justified, Arial font, bold, size 12,
and all capitalized. This section describes who requested the inspection and under what
authority it was conducted.]
[Boiler plate - Use correct name, address, and date]
At the request of the Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, Water Enforcement Branch, I
performed a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO3) inspection at Beefmaster Feed
Yard on June 5, 2005. This inspection was performed pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The CAFO inspection was conducted as a Level B
Multimedia Inspection, and the Region 7 Multimedia Screening Checklist (MMSC) is included as
Attachment 1 [if completed]. This narrative report and attachments present the findings and
observations made during the inspection.
[The text of the general body of this report should be left justified, Times New Roman font, size
12, and double-spaced after each period. Please be careful not to allow "widows and orphans"
and ensure that new section titles are not be left dangling at the bottom of the page.]
Appendix AP - Page 872
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
2.0 PARTICIPANTS
[List all those who participated in the inspection activity: name, title, organization)
Beefmaster Feed Yard (BFY):
Tex Ritter, General Manager*
Jill Oakly, Safety Manager*
Kansas Department of Environment (KDE):
John Wayne, Inspector*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
Angus Steak, CAFO Inspector
*Copy of business card included in Attachment 2 .
3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES
[Boiler plate — Note: In this section, you describe the general procedures used during your
inspection, including: SOPs used, initial facility contact, initial site entry, personal identification,
purpose, scope, objectives and flow of the inspection, verification that you are at the correct
facility and that you are talking with the correct person who can act as the official facility
representative, confidential business information, notices of potential violations, and Section
1001 and 1002 of US Code, etc.]
I conducted this inspection in accordance with the procedures described herein and the
following EPA Region VII Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), unless otherwise noted:
SOP No.
2332.09 Bio-Security Procedures for Conducting NPDES Compliance
Evaluations at Animal Feeding Operation
A29392 Sampling of CAFO wastes, [if sampling occurred]
[List all applicable SOPs that are used.]
Prior to beginning the inspection, I conducted a visual reconnaissance of the BFY facility and its
surroundings from the public right-of-way. This included State Hwy 24, County road "H" and an
un-named road on the north side of the facility. During my reconnaissance, I searched for areas
of environmental concern, discharges, drainage patterns, flow directions, distance and direction
of nearest perennial waters, visual condition of perennial waters, facility location and layout
and potential issues covered on the MMSC. I identified no obvious environmental issues or
concerns during this preliminary examination. [If you did identify a significant issue, state
briefly what is was and that it will be fully described later in the report.]
I contacted Mr. Ritter [who], General Manager, of BFY, by telephone [how], on June 4, 2005,
the day before the inspection, at approximately 1300 hrs [when]. I conducted this pre-
notification to facilitate my access to the facility [why]. I informed Mr. Ritter that I would be
conducting an inspection at his facility [where] on the afternoon of June 5 [when]. I asked him if
he would be available at that time. He said that he would. Additionally, Mr. Wayne, the KDHE
inspector, accompanied me during the inspection. [The theme of answering the questions of
Appendix AP - Page 873
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
who, what, when, where, how, and why, MUST run throughout you report and each of the
questions needs to be answered to the best of your ability.]
I arrived at BFY at approximately 1400 hrs on June 5, 2005. Upon arrival, I introduced myself
and presented my credentials to Mr. Ritter and Ms. Oakly. I also provided them my business
card. I asked Mr. Ritter if he was able to act as the "Official Facility Representative" for the BYF.
He said that he would represent the facility. I asked him what he was responsible for and how
long he had those responsibilities. Mr. Ritter said that he is responsible for the overall
management of the facility and that he had been the General Manager for the last ten years.
He said Ms. Oakly was BFY's Safety Manager, and that she has held that position for the last
eight years. Ms. Oakly verified what Mr. Ritter said, and explained she was responsible for all
environmental management and compliance activities at BFY.
I explained to them that I would be conducting a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
(CAFO) inspection under the authority of Section 308 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to evaluate their compliance status with their NPDES permit [if the facility is not permitted,
you would say, "their compliance with the requirements of the CWA and determine whether or
not they require a permit"]. I also informed them that I would also be evaluating compliance
with several other regulatory requirements through the completion of a Multimedia Screening
Checklist. I explained that the inspection would consist of a review of facility operations,
required records, waste generation and management practices, and a visual inspection of the
site. I stated that I would document my findings and observations by making copies, taking
photographs and/or videos, obtaining statements from facility staff, and collecting samples if
necessary [state: "and by collecting samples," if this was a sampling inspection].
I explained to Mr. Ritter and Ms. Oakly that in order to fully understand their operations and
properly evaluate their compliance status, it is important that I collect truthful and accurate
information. I asked them to inform me anytime they were uncertain about what they were
providing me or if they did not understand what I was asking. I presented Mr. Ritter and
Ms. Oakly a copy of Section 1001 and 1002 of the U.S. Federal Code** concerning making false
statements to federal inspectors. I asked them if they understood Section 1001 and 1002. They
said, "Yes, they did."
At the conclusion of the inspection, I summarized my preliminary findings and observations to
Mr. Ritter and Ms. Oakly. I explained BFY's right to make a claim of business confidentiality and
presented Mr. Ritter with a Confidentiality Notice** (Attachment 3). Mr. Ritter did not make
any confidentiality claims at the time of the inspection. I prepared a Receipt for Documents and
Samples** (Attachment 4) for all material I received from Mr. Ritter and provided him with a
copy of the receipt [if copies or other material were received], I completed an In-Briefing/Exit-
Briefing checklist and a CAFO inspection checklist during the inspection (Attachments 5 and 6
respectively). I prepared and presented Mr. Ritter with a Notice of Preliminary Findings
**(NOPF -Attachment 7) form. I explained that this form documents those observations and
preliminary findings made during the inspection process and that the preliminary findings are
based on my knowledge of what I observed and knew at the time. I also explained that these
findings do not constitute a final enforcement determination and are provided to assist the
Appendix AP - Page 874
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
facility in their compliance efforts. I explained his need to respond within 10-days. Mr. Ritter
acknowledged receipt of these forms by signing them.
[** Titles of documents should be in italic print]
4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
[This section of the report will vary based on the facility inspected and the specific findings,
observations, and potential violations and regulatory concerns you identify. Please use the
format and cover each section identified below.
Please focus on using short, easy to understand sentences, and a separate paragraph for each
new train of thought or topic. Use first person, active voice, and strive to present the material in
order to minimize your chance of being misunderstood.
For each statement or fact that you present, you must be able to describe or explain "How you
know what you know." If it is not obvious to the reader how you know or knew it, either do not
include the statement, rewrite the statement, obtain the appropriate information need to
demonstrate how you know what you are saying. If necessary, identify areas where additional
inguiry is needed.
For each potential violation or regulatory concern, present the information using a "Compare
and Contrast style." Make sure you address each "Element of Proof" for each component of the
potential violation identified in the law, permit, or regulation. This is essential to a good report.
For example, a large CAFO needs to have 1000 head of cattle (Element of proof #1) on-site for
more then 45-days/year (Element of proof #2) -1 counted 2750 head on the day of the
inspection and Mr. Ritter's inventory records (Attachment) show that he had at least that
number of cattle on-site for 250 days during the last year.]
4.1 Facility Operations
[This section should provide a brief description of the facility location, the owner, the operator (if
different from the owner), number of employees, years at this location, prior operations at this
location, size, and a general overview of operations. A more specific description of operations
should be described in the sections of this report were the specific description relates directly to
the compliance requirements.]
According to Mr. Ritter, BFY is located approximately 3 miles north of Tall Prairie, Kansas (see
map, Attachment). The facility address is 40410 NW 20th Avenue, Tall Prairie, KS. [Note mailing
address if different] The legal description is contained in (Attachment - [Do not copy the legal
description into the report if possible as they are very exact and errors can be easily made).
Mr. Ritter stated that the facility employs three full time employees and 2 seasonal employees.
He said that BFY was constructed in 1962 has been a feeding operation ever since. He said that
Mr. Beefmaster owns BFY.
Mr. Ritter stated that BFY operates a feedlot on approximately 201 acres which are divided into
25 pens. He said that BFY also leases an additional 7,000 acres (see map, Attachment) for
grazing, corn production, and land application. He said that BFY currently has approximately
3550 head of cattle in the pens and that he is permitted for a maximum of 5000 head. He said
Appendix AP - Page 875
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
that all runoff from the 25 pens drain through a series of ditches and runoff control berms into
a single five acre lagoon. Mr. Ritter said that he has three center pivot irrigation units for land
application of lagoon wastewater on approximately 60 acres.
Mr. Ritter said that manure from the pens is scraped weekly and sold to a composting
operation located adjacent to the facility. He said that BFY has three manure storage areas
onsite (shown in Attachment.) Mr. Ritter said the runoff from these manure storage areas is
captured by the facility lagoon system.
Mr. Ritter also said that BFY has one 500-gallon used oil tank, one 1000-gallon diesel tank, and
two 560-gallon gas tanks (Photos 1-3).
4.2 CAFO Status and NPDES Permit Status
[In this section, you need to demonstrate that you have determined that the facility meets the
minimum criteria to be subject to the CAFO requirements and you should identify if they are a
permitted facility and their key permit requirements, e.g., maximum capacity and that the
permit was still in force and has not expired.]
BFY has an NPDES permit for their CAFO that limits the maximum number of cattle to 5000
head. The permit was issued by NDEQ on December 12, 2003 (Attachment). The permit will
expire on December 11, 2008. I inspected the facility for compliance with the permit
requirements. [If the facility does not have a permit, skip this type of paragraph.]
Based on my observations of the cattle on-site, a review of facility records and statements by
Mr. Ritter, BFY is confining at least 1,000 (total) head of cattle for more than 45 days during the
last twelve month period. During my inspection, I estimated the number of cattle in each of the
pens to be approximately 3300-3700 head on the day of the inspection. I reviewed inventory
and sales documents which show that there were more than 2500 head on-site continuously
during the last 12 month period (Attachment). Mr. Ritter stated that he had 3550 head on the
day of the inspection and that there were at least 2500 head on-site during the last 12 months.
My inspection of the pens also revealed no vegetative cover in any of the pens (see photo 6-
10). As a result of my observations, this facility meets the definition of large CAFO as it is
defined at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 122.23.
4.3 Regulatory History
[Please describe any past inspection activities, compliance orders, previous violations, concerns,
or other issues found during your file review or inspection that may affect potential enforcement
at this facility. Remember who, when, and what.]
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality conducted an inspection of the facility on
December 2, 2004 (Attachment). The inspection report lists the following as areas of concern:
[NEVER make a statement like "The inspection report states that the facility was in compliance
at the time of the inspection." This is unnecessary and only opens the door to questions and
other issues regarding EPA vs. State findings.]
1. The facility was granted a 90-day extension to complete the permeability tests on
the lagoon. The deadline for completion is now March 12, 2005.
Appendix AP - Page 876
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
2. KLA Environmental will be conducting the permeability test. To conduct this test, the
water level of the lagoon needs has to be increased by 1 ft in order to float the test
equipment. It is estimated that it will take two days to complete the test and return
the water level to its original level.
I asked Mr. Ritter what were the results of the permeability tests and if the lagoon was
returned to its original level within the two days. He said that the tests were completed on
March 2, 2005 and that the permeability of the soil met the permit requirements (Attachment).
He also said that he dewatered the lagoon after the test in order to immediately return it to its
original level.
On August 24,1999, EPA Region VII conducted an inspection of the facility. This inspection led
EPA to issue an administrative compliance order (ACO) to the facility on December 21,1999 (See
Attachment). The following is a summary of the violations listed in the ACO:
1. The facility did not record the freeboard levels in the lagoons on a daily basis when
the levels were less than required by the NPDES permit.
2. Wastewater was land applied during days with precipitation in excess of 0.05 inches
and on days immediately preceded by more than 0.05 inches of precipitation.
3. Pond #9 was not completed as described in the facility NPDES permit.
4. Pond #5 did not have a staff gauge.
5. The staff gauges in the remainder of the ponds were tilted and leaning in such a way
that determining the required depth was difficult.
Appendix AP - Page 877
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
5. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
[In this section you will identify your findings and observations on the day of the inspection.
Include rainfall data from nearest official weather station if it is or has been raining within the
week prior to the inspections. Remember to include distance, slope, and drainage information to
the nearest perennial waters of the U.S.]
Mr. Ritter said he recorded 0.65 inches of precipitation at the feed yard the day before the
inspection. I reviewed the last three years of precipitation records required by BFY's permit and
observed that the recent rainfall events had been recorded, as well as, previous rainfall events
for the past three years. Except for the dust being minimized on the day of the inspection, I did
not observe any other impacts of the limited amount of rainfall on the day before the
inspection.
Mr. Ritter said that BFY uses tractor-pulled scrapers to clean the pens on a weekly basis to keep
them clean and dry. During my inspection of the pens, they appeared to be well maintained
(photo ). I also verified that the drainage from all of the pens would flow into the lagoon during
a rainfall event by physically observing the slope and flow control structures, i.e., ditches
flowing to the lagoon. If an overflow were to occur, it would flow from the northeast corner of
the lagoon dam (photo ) into Jenkins Creek. According to the USGS topographical map, Jenkins
Creek is the nearest perennial stream and is approximately 200 yards from the lagoon dam
(Attachment).
I inspected the three manure piles located south of the lagoon (see map) and noted that two
were quite large (photo ) and one was much smaller (photo ). I verified that the drainage from
the manure piles goes to the lagoons as described by Mr. Ritter. Mr. Ritter said that all of the
manure generated by the facility is either sold to a composting operation, located adjacent to
the feedlot, or is given away to private individuals. Mr. Ritter provided me with a copy of his
records showing the amount of manure picked up by the composting operation (B&G Potting
Soil, Inc.) or given away from January 13, 2003 to the present (See sales records Attachment).
During the inspection, I observed the freeboard level in the facility lagoon and compared it
against what was specified in BFY's permit.
NOPF #1 - Failure to Maintain Adequate Freeboard - Section B, Operation and
Maintenance Requirements, of the facilities NPDES permit states: "Whenever the
available storage capacity is less than the amounts specified in Table 1, dewatering shall
be initiated and conducted on all days suitable for land application of wastes until the
required storage capacity is again available." Table 1 requires that a freeboard level of
five feet be maintained. I observed that the freeboard level was four feet on the day of
the inspection. I obtained this level by reading it off the staff gage located in the South
end of the lagoon. According to Mr. Ritter, this is the deepest portion of the lagoon.
Mr. Ritter said that he had been busy and just did not get around to pumping down the
lagoon. He also said that he was aware of the five foot minimum level.
NOPF ft2 - Failure to Fully Maintain Monthly Operating Log - Section C, Operation and
Maintenance Requirements, of the facilities NPDES permit states: "A written operational
Appendix AP - Page 878
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
log shall be maintained. For each day waste is applied, information recorded shall
include; soil condition (frozen/ thawed, etc.), quantity of waste applied, and the area
where the waste was applied." During my review of BFY's monthly operating log, I
observed that the condition of the soil in the land application area is not specified on
land application days (Attachment). Mr. Ritter land applies over approximately 60 acres
with center pivot irrigation systems.
The current NPDES permit does not specify the amount of time the facility is required to
wait following a precipitation event until land application can proceed.
NOPF #3: Failure to Maintain Records for Three Years-Appendix 3 of B FY's permit,
requires BFY to maintain daily records of lagoon levels. During my review of the records,
I observed that BFY was not keeping a log of daily lagoon levels prior to March 16, 2003
(Attachment). Mr. Ritter said that he first became aware of this requirement as a result
on an December 2, 2004 NDEQ inspection.
[NOTE 1: All potential violations and/or concerns should be described using separate, indented
paragraphs, italics and bold text as shown above. It is critical that they stand out from the rest
of the report.
Note 2: If this facility did not have a permit, you should document the same type of information
that a basic NPDES CAFO would require, just not cite it on the NOPF.]
Example of Sampling:
According to BFY precipitation logs (Attachment), BFY had three inches of rain in the last 48
hours. This is much less then the seven inches of a 25 year, 24-hr storm event.
NOPF #4; Discharging in Excess of Permit Limitations - Section D, Discharges, of BFY's
permit states: "The facility will not discharge any wastewater unless it is the result of a
25 year, 24-hour storm event." I observed the lagoon overflowing (photo ). I followed the
overflow, down gradient, approximately 200 yards to where it entered Jenkins Creek
(photo 10, note dark discoloration of the overflow material). As I walked this path, I took
readings with my inclinometer at several points (see map) and noted that the grade was
approximately 5%. I collected samples approximately 100 yards up-stream from the
discharge point (point A), at the discharge point (point B), and approximately 100 yards
down stream of the discharge point (point C). The samples show (Attachment-
Analytical Sample Data) an increase in fecal coliform in the receiving stream from the
upstream point (point A) to the downstream point (point C). What is notable about the
results, is that the concentration of fecal coliform at point C is approximately 60 times
higher than it was upstream (point A). The concentration of fecal coliform downstream
was 1,750,000 CFU/ 100ml. The NDEO Water Quality Standards establish a limit of 200
CFU/100 ml for all state waterbodies if there is a possibility it can be used for full body
contact recreation. Jenkins Creek is routinely used for swimming by local children near
the stream access (point D), approximately % mile downstream from the discharge point
B. Sampling at point D showed a fecal coliform concentration of 600,000 CFU/lOOml,
well above the state standard.
Appendix AP - Page 879
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
[Note 3: If the facility is discharging to Waters of the U.S. and they do not have a permit, you
would cite them for "Unlawful Discharge of Pollutants to Water of the U.S." per Section 301,
CWA.]
6. OTHER REGULATORY CONCERNS
As noted earlier, I conducted this inspection as a Level B Multimedia inspection. Part of the
MMSC covers the requirements for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC). I
observed five fuel storage tanks on-site during the inspection. I observed that two of the tanks,
identified asTl and T2 by Mr. Ritter (photo ), were being used and three were in the process of
construction. The smaller of the two tanks (T-l) had a capacity of 1,000 gallons and, according
to Mr. Ritter, contained #2 off-road diesel. Mr. Ritter also stated that the larger tank (T-2) had a
capacity of 4,000 gallons and contained unleaded gasoline. I asked Mr. Ritter if these two tanks
were full. He said yes, that they had just been filled last month (see fuel receipt, Attachment).
The three new tanks each will have a capacity of 1000-gallons each and will have secondary
containment.
Concern: Failure to Have and SPCC Plan or Secondary Containment - 40 CFR Part 112
requires all oil tanks with a combined capacity of greater than 1320 gallons to have
secondary containment and an SPCC plan approved by a Professional Engineer. I did not
observe secondary containment around either tank T-l or T-2 (photo ). Mr. Ritter stated
that he did not have an SPCC plan.
I observed one maintenance shop located on the west side of the facility (see map). Mr. Ritter
said that the shop generates used oil but he did not know what the generation rate was. He
said that used oil is stored in an approximately 2000-gallon tank on the north side of the shop.
CONCERN: Labeling of Used Oil Tank - 40 CFR Part 279 requires all generators of used to label
their used oil containers with the words "USED OIL." I observed that the used oil tank was not
labeled with the words used oil (photo ).
Angus Steak, CAFO Inspector Date
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Multimedia Screening Checklist (1 page)
2. Copy of Business Cards (varies)
3. Confidentiality Notice (1 page)
4. Receipt for Documents and Samples (1 page)
5. In-Briefing/Exit-Briefing checklist (1 page)
6. CAFO Inspection Checklist (? pages)
7. Notice of Potential Violations (3 pages)
8. Other attachments listed in order
Photographs (18)
Appendix AP - Page 880
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AQ -
Media-Specific Inspection Components
Appendix AQ - Page 881
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The information in this appendix was excerpted from NEIC's Multimedia Investigation
Manual
The information presented in this appendix includes many significant tasks for several media-
specific inspection areas. Media discussed include hazardous waste, air, drinking water, toxic
substances, and pesticides; emergency planning/community right-to-know and the Superfund
program are also discussed.
A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle C Hazardous Wastes
Evaluating Compliance
Under RCRA Subtitle C, hazardous wastes are subject to extensive regulations on generation,
transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal. A manifest system tracks shipments of
hazardous wastes from the generator through ultimate disposal. This "cradle-to-grave"
management is implemented through regulations and permits.
In determining the facility status under RCRA, the investigator must decide whether the facility
is a generator, transporter, and/or Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF), and
whether the facility is permitted or has interim status. Generally, EPA Regional and State offices
maintain files for the facility to be inspected. Information may include:
• A list of wastes that are treated, stored, and disposed and how each is managed (for
TSDFs)
• A list of hazardous wastes generated, their origins, and accumulation areas (for
generators)
• Biennial, annual, or other reports required by RCRA and submitted to the regulatory
agencies; these include any required monitoring reports
• A detailed map or plot plan showing the facility layout and location(s) of waste
management areas
• The facility RCRA Notification Form (Form 8700-12)
• The RCRA Part A Permit Application (for TSDFs)
• The RCRA Part B Permit application (for TSDFs, if applicable)
• The RCRA permit (for TSDFs, if applicable)
• Notifications and/or certifications for land disposal restrictions (for generators).
Generators
Hazardous waste generators are regulated under 40 CFR Parts 262 and 268. These regulations
contain requirements for:
• Obtaining an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Identification Number
• Determining whether a waste is hazardous
Appendix AQ- Page 882
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Managing wastes before shipment
• Accumulating and storing hazardous wastes
• Manifesting waste shipments
• Recordkeeping and reporting
• Restricting wastes from land disposal (also regulated under Part 268).
The generator regulations vary, depending upon the volume of hazardous wastes generated
with fewer requirements for smaller generators. Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) generate
greater than 1000 kg of hazardous waste/month, Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) generate
less than lOOOkg/month but more than 100 kg/month, while Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg/month. The investigator must
determine which regulations apply. Additionally, the investigator should do the following:
• Verify that the generator has an EPA Identification Number that is used on all
required documentation (e.g., reports, manifests, etc.).
• Confirm that the volume of hazardous wastes generated is consistent with reported
volumes. Examine the processes generating the wastes to assure that all generated
hazardous wastes have been identified. Look for improper mixing or dilution.
• Ascertain how the generator determines/documents that a waste is hazardous.
Check to see wastes are properly classified. Collect samples, if necessary
• Determine whether pre-transport requirements are satisfied, including those for
packaging, container condition, labeling and marking, and placarding.
• Determine the length of time that hazardous wastes are being stored or
accumulated. Storage or accumulation for more than 90 days requires a permit
(facilities that generate less than 1000 kg/month of hazardous waste are allowed to
store/accumulate for up to 180 days without a permit). Generators storing for less
than 90 days must comply with requirements outlined in 40 CFR Part 262.34.
• Verify RCRA reports and supporting documentation for accuracy, including
inspection logs, biennial reports, exception reports, and manifests (with land
disposal restriction notifications and/or certifications).
• Watch for accumulation areas which are in use but have not been identified by the
generator. Note: Some authorized State regulations do not have provisions for
"satellite storage" accumulation areas.
• Determine whether a generator has the required contingency plan and emergency
procedures, whether the plan is complete, and if the generator follows the plan/
procedures.
• Determine whether hazardous waste storage areas comply with applicable
requirements.
• Facilities with their own vehicle maintenance garage should be evaluated to assure
that wastes such as used oil, anti-fre^ solvents, and paints are disposed of properly.
Appendix AQ- Page 883
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Transporters Hazardous waste transporters (e.g., by truck, ship, or rail) are regulated under 40
CFR Part 263, which contains requirements for:
• Obtaining an EPA Identification Number
• Manifesting hazardous waste shipments
• Recordkeeping and reporting
• Sending bulk shipments (by water, rail).
Storage regulations apply if accumulation times at transfer stations are exceeded. Transporters
importing hazardous wastes, or mixing hazardous wastes of different Department of
Transportation (DOT) shipping descriptions in the same container, are classified as generators
and must comply with 40 CFR Parts 262 and 268. Investigators evaluating transporter
compliance should do the following:
• Verify that the transporter has an EPA identification number that is used on all
required documentation (e.g., manifests).
• Determine whether hazardous waste containers stored at a transfer facility meet
DOT pre-transport requirements.
• Verify whether the transporter is maintaining recordkeeping and reporting
documents, including manifests, shipping papers (as required), and discharge
reports. All required documents should be both present and complete.
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Permitted and interim status TSDFs are regulated under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, respectively.
(40 CFR Part 264 applies only if the facility has a RCRA permit (i.e., a permitted facility); 40 CFR
Part 265 applies if the facility does not have a RCRA permit (i.e., an interim status facility).
These requirements include three categories of regulations consisting of administrative
requirements, general standards, and specific standards. The investigator should do the
following activities to determine compliance with Subparts A through E:
• Verify that the TSDF has an EPA Identification Number that is used on all required
documentation.
• Determine what hazardous wastes are accepted at the facility, how they are verified,
and how they are managed.
• Compare wastes managed at the facility with those listed in the Hazardous Waste
Activity Notification (Form 8700-12), the Parts A and B permit applications, and the
permit.
• Verify that the TSDF has and is following a waste analysis plan kept at the facility;
inspect the plan contents.
• Identify and inspect security measures and equipment.
• Review inspection logs to ensure they are present and complete. Note problems and
corrective measures.
Appendix AQ- Page 884
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Review training documentation to ascertain that required training has been given to
employees.
• Inspect waste management areas to determine whether reactive, ignitable, and
incompatible wastes are handled pursuant to requirements.
• Review preparedness and prevention practices and inspect related equipment.
• Review contingency plans; examine emergency equipment and documented
arrangements with local authorities.
• Examine the waste tracking system and associated recordkeeping/reporting systems.
Required documentation includes manifests and biennial reports, and may include
unmanifested waste reports and spill/release reports. Relevant documents may
include on-site waste tracking forms.
• Verify that the operating record is complete according to 40 CFR 264.73 or 265.73.
The investigator can determine compliance with standards in Subparts F through H by doing the
following:
• For permitted facilities, verify compliance with permit standards with respect to
ground water monitoring, releases from solid waste management units,
closure/post-closure, and financial requirements.
• For interim status facilities required to monitor ground water, determine what kind
of monitoring program applies.
• Depending on the type of investigation, examine the following items to determine
compliance:
- Characterization of site hydrogeology
- Sampling and analytical records
- Statistical methods used to compare analytical data
- Analytical methods
- Compliance with reporting requirements and schedules
- Sampling and analysis plan (for content, completeness, and if it is being followed)
- Conditions, maintenance, and operation of monitoring equipment, including
wellheads, field instruments, and sampling materials
- Construction/design of monitoring system
- Assessment monitoring outline and/or plan
- Corrective action plan for permitted facilities and for interim status facilities under
3008(h) enforcement actions.
• For waste management units undergoing closure, review the closure plan (including
amendments and modifications), plan approval, closure schedule, and facility and
regulatory certification. Examine response actions to any release of hazardous waste
constituents from a closed or closing regulated unit.
Appendix AQ- Page 885
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• For waste management units in post closure care, inspect security measures, ground
water monitoring and reporting, and the maintenance and monitoring of waste
containment systems.
• Verify that the owner/operator has demonstrated financial assurance regarding
closure.
Specific Hazardous Waste Management Units
The technical standards in 40 CFR Part 264 (Subparts I through 0 and Subpart X) and 40 CFR
Part 265 (Subparts I through R) govern specific hazardous waste management units used for
storage, disposal, or treatment (e.g., tanks, landfills, incinerators). Standards for chemical,
physical, and biological treatment at permitted facilities under 40 CFR Part 264 have been
incorporated under Miscellaneous Units, Subpart X. The investigator should do the following:
• Identify all hazardous waste management areas and the activity in each area;
compare the areas identified in the field with those listed the permit or permit
application, as appropriate. Investigate inconsistencies between actual practice and
the information submitted to regulatory agencies.
• Verify that the owner/operator is complying with applicable design, installation, and
integrity standards; field-check the design, condition, and operation of waste
management areas and equipment.
• Determine how incompatible wastes and ignitable or reactive wastes are managed.
• Verify that the owner/operator is conducting self-inspections where and when
required; determine what the inspections include.
• Identify and inspect required containment facilities for condition and capacity;
identify lead detection facilities.
• Determine whether hazardous waste releases have occurred and how the owner/
operator responds to leaks and spills.
• Verify that the owner/operator is complying with additional waste analysis and trial
test requirements, where applicable.
• Check the closure/post-closure procedures for specific waste management units
(surface impoundments, waste piles, etc.) for regulatory compliance.
• For landfills, determine howthe owner/operator manages bulk and contained
liquids.
• Field-check security and access to waste management units.
• Determine the facility monitoring requirements (for air emissions, ground water,
leak detection, instrumentation, equipment, etc.) and inspect monitoring facilities
and records.
Land Treatment Facilities
When inspecting land treatment facilities, the investigator should also review the following
items:
Appendix AQ- Page 886
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Soil monitoring methods and analytical data.
• Comparisons between soil monitoring data and background concentrations of
constituents in untreated soils to detect migration of hazardous wastes.
• Waste analyses done to determine toxicity, the concentrations of hazardous waste
constituents, and, if food-chain crops are grown on the land, the concentrations of
arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in the waste(s). The concentrations must be
such that hazardous waste constituents can be degraded, transformed, or
immobilized by treatment.
• Runon and runoff management systems.
Incinerators
When evaluating compliance of interim status incinerators, the investigator also should review
and/or inspect the following items:
• Waste analyses done to enable the owner/operator to establish steady-state
operating conditions and to determine the pollutants that might be emitted.
• General procedures for operating the incinerator during start-up and shut-down.
• Operation of equipment used for monitoring combustion and emissions control,
monitoring schedules, and data output.
• The incinerator and associated equipment.
For permitted incinerators, the investigator must evaluate the incinerator operation against
specific permit requirements for waste analysis, performance standards, operating
requirements, monitoring, and inspections. The investigator also should do the following:
• Verify that the incinerator burns only wastes specified in the permit
• Verify methods to control fugitive emissions
• Determine waste management practices for burn residue and ash.
Thermal Treatment Facilities
The investigator evaluating compliance of thermal treatment facilities in interim status also
should review the following items:
• General operating requirements, to verify whether steady-state operating
conditions are achieved, as required.
• Waste analysis records, to ensure that (a) the wastes are suitable for thermal
treatment and (b) the required analyses in 40 CFR Part 265.375 have been
performed.
Thermal treatment facilities permitted under 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart X will have specific
permit requirements.
Appendix AQ- Page 887
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Biological Treatment Facilities
The investigator evaluating compliance of chemical, physical, and biological treatment facilities
in interim status also should do the following:
• Determine the general operating procedures.
• Review the waste analysis records and methods to determine whether the
procedures are sufficient to comply with 40 CFR Part 265.13.
• Review trial treatment test methods and records to determine whether the selected
treatment method is appropriate for the particular waste.
• Examine procedures for treating ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes for
compliance with Subpart Q requirements.
Chemical, physical, and biological treatment facilities permitted under Subpart X will have
specific permit requirements.
Air Emission Standards
Owners/operators of TSDFs and generators with 90-day unites must comply with air emission
standards contained in Subparts AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. Subparts AA and
BB establish standards for equipment containing or contacting hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 percent. This equipment includes:
• Process vents
• Pumps in light liquid service
• Compressors
• Sampling connecting systems
• Open-ended valves or lines
• Valves in gas/vapor service or in light liquid service
• Pumps and valves in heavy liquid service, pressure relief devices in light liquid or
heavy liquid service, and flanges and other connections.
Total organic emissions from process vents must be reduced below 1.4 kg/hr. and 2.8 mg/yr.
The other equipment types above must be marked and monitored routinely to detect leaks.
Repairs must be initiated within 15 days of discovering the leak.
Subpart CC establishes standards for units managing hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of greater than 500 ppmw at the point of waste origination. The following types
of units must be controlled:
• Tanks
• Containers
• Surface impoundments
• Miscellaneous Subpart X units
Appendix AQ- Page 888
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
The facility operating record should contain information documenting compliance with the air
emission standards. A complete list of required information is in 40 CFR Parts 264.1035,
264.1064, 265.1035, and 265.1064. Permitted facilities must submit semiannual reports to the
Regional Administrator outlining which valves and compressors were not fixed during the
preceding 6 months. The investigator can do the following things:
• Visually inspect the equipment for marking.
• Review documentation in the operating record and cross-check this information with
that submitted to the Regional Administrator in semiannual reports.
Land Disposal Restrictions
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) in 40 CFR Part 268 prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes
unless the waste meets applicable treatment standards as listed in 40 CFR Part 268.40-43. The
treatment standards are expressed as (1) contaminant concentrations in the extract or total
waste or (2) specified technologies.
Notifications and certifications comprise the majority of required LDR documentation.
Notifications tell the treatment or storage facility the appropriate treatment standards and any
prohibition levels that apply to the waste. Certifications are signed statements telling the
treatment or storage facility that the waste already meets the applicable treatment standards
and prohibition levels.
Investigators evaluating hazardous waste generators for LDR compliance should do the
following:
• Determine whether the generator produces restricted wastes; review how/if the
generator determines a waste is restricted.
• Review documentation/data used to support the determination that a waste is
restricted, based solely on knowledge.
• Determine how/if a generator determines the waste treatment standards and/or
disposal technologies.
• Verify whether the generator satisfies documentation, recordkeeping, notification,
certification, packaging, and manifesting requirements.
• Ascertain whether the generator is, or might become, a TSDF and subject to
additional requirements.
• Determine who completes and signs LDR notifications and certifications and where
these documents are kept.
• Review the waste analysis plan if the generator is treating a prohibited waste in tanks
or containers.
Investigators evaluating TSDFs should do the following:
Appendix AQ- Page 889
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Ensure the TSDF is complying with generator recordkeeping requirements when
residues generated from treating restricted wastes are manifested offsite.
• Verify whether the treatment standards have been achieved for particular wastes
prior to disposal.
• Review documentation required for storage, treatment, and land disposal;
documentation may include waste analyses and results, waste analysis plans, and
generator and treatment facility notifications and certifications.
Subtitle I—Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Evaluating Compliance
Because the tanks are located underground, visual/field observations have limited application
in determining compliance for USTs. The UST program relies heavily on the use of documents to
track the status and condition of any particular tank.
Interviews with facility personnel are important when determining compliance with any
environmental regulation. Questions regarding how the facility is handling its UST program will
give the inspector insight into the types of violations that may be found. Topics to be covered in
the interview include:
• Age, quantity, and type of product stored for each onsite tank.
• How and when tanks have been closed.
• Type of release detection used on each tank (if any); some facilities may have release
detection on tanks where it is not required.
• Type of corrosion protection and frequency of inspections.
• Which tanks have pressurized piping associated with them.
Visual/field observations are used to determine if any spills or overfills have occurred that have
not been immediately cleaned up. The presence of product around the f ill pipe indicates a spill
or overfill. Proper release detection methods can also be verified with field observations.
During the interviews, ask the facility if monthly inventory control along with annual tightness
testing is used. If monthly inventory control is used, check the measuring stick for divisions of
1/8 inch. A field check of the entire facility can also be done to determine if any tanks may have
gone unreported. Fillports and vent lines can indicate the existence of a UST.
Documents take up the largest portion of time during a UST inspection. Documents that should
be reviewed include:
• Notifications for all UST systems
• Reports of releases including suspected releases, spills and overfills, and confirmed
releases
• Initial site characterization and corrective action plans
• Notifications before permanent closure
Appendix AQ- Page 890
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Corrosion expert's analysis if corrosion protection is not used
• Documentation of operation of corrosion protection equipment
• Recent compliance with release detection requirements, including daily inventory
sheets with the monthly reconciliation
• Results of site investigation conducted at the time of permanent closure.
Document retention rules also apply, so be sure to get all of the documents a facility may be
required to keep. To determine if the implementing agency has been notified of all tanks,
compare the notifications to general UST lists from the facility. Usually, the facility will keep a
list of tanks separate from the notifications and tanks may appear on that list that do not
appear on a notification form. Also, compare the notifications to tank lists required in other
documents, like the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan.
RCRA Non-Notifiers
Anytime an investigator is conducting an inspection, they should be aware of the possibility of a
"non-notifier" under RCRA. A non-notifier is a facility who has either not notified the EPA or the
delegated state of their hazardous waste activity or is managing hazardous waste in an
unpermitted unit. The failure to notify may be intentional or the facility may not be aware that
the unit should be regulated.
Two specific circumstances for an investigator to be aware of are as follows:
• a facility that is generating a hazardous waste and failed to notify of their generator
status and obtain a RCRA I.D. Number.
• a facility that is disposing of hazardous waste in an on-site surface impoundment or
landfill that has been determined by the facility to be either a non-hazardous solid
waste management unit or an exempt wastewater treatment unit. (When inspecting
the wastewater treatment plant, investigators should be aware that the RCRA
exemption applies to tanks only. If wastewater meeting the definition of a hazardous
waste is discharged into a surface impoundment, this unit is required to have a RCRA
permit.)
B. Clean Air Act (CAA)
The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the legislative basis for air pollution control regulations. It was first
enacted in 1955 and later in 1963, 1965,1970,1977, and 1990. The 1955 and the 1963
Amendments called for the abatement of air pollution through voluntary measures. The 1965
amendments gave Federal regulators the authority to establish automobile emission standards.
Basic Program
The CAA Amendments of 1970 significantly broadened the scope of the CAA, forming the basis
for Federal and State air pollution control regulations. Section 109 of the 1970 Amendments
called for the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, 40 CFR Part 50) to
protect public health and welfare from the known or anticipated adverse effects of six air
Appendix AQ- Page 891
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
pollutants (as of 1990 the standards were for small particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead). The States were required to develop and submit to
EPA implementation plans that were designed to achieve the NAAQS. These State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) contained regulations that limited air emissions from stationary
and mobile sources. They were developed and submitted to EPA on a continuing basis and
became federally enforceable when approved.
Section 111 of the 1970 Amendments directed EPA to develop standards of performance for
new stationary sources. These regulations, known as New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60), limited air emissions from subject new sources. The standards are
pollutant and source specific.
Section 112 of the 1970 amendments directed EPA to develop standards for hazardous air
pollutants. These regulations, known as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs, t 40 CFR Part 61), limited hazardous air emissions from both new and
existing sources.
The CAA Amendments of 1977 addressed the failure of the 1970 amendments to achieve the
NAAQS by requiring permits for major new sources. The permit requirements were based on
whether the source was located in an area that did not meet the NAAQS (non-attainment
areas). The permit program for sources in attainment areas was referred to as the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
The CAA Amendments of 1990 significantly expanded the scope of the CAA. Section 112
amendments have amended the NESHAP program with the new provisions called "Title III -
Hazardous Air Pollutants." Title III listed 189 hazardous air pollutants (Appendix O) and required
EPA to start setting standards for categories of sources that emit these pollutants within 2 years
(1992) and finish setting all standards within 10 years. It also contains provisions for a
prevention-of-accidental-releases program.
Section 211 of the CAA regulates any fuel or fuel additive for use in motor vehicles if the
resulting emission would cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or if the emission products would significantly
impair any emission control device or system in general use. There are several provisions under
CAA section 211 which regulate fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel additives.
The Federal tampering prohibition is contained in Section 203(a)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the CAA prohibits any person from removing or rendering
inoperative any emission control device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle engine prior to its sale and delivery to an ultimate purchaser. Section
203(a)(3)(A) also prohibits any person from knowingly removing or rendering inoperative any
such device or element of design after such sale and delivery and the causing thereof.
Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, offering for
sale, or installing any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle
or motor vehicle engine where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat,
or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or
Appendix AQ- Page 892
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title, and where the person
knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or is being installed
for such use.
Section 609 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 requires facilities that perform service on vehicle
air conditioners to have recycling or recovery equipment and the technicians who use the
equipment to be certified by an EPA-approved Section 609 program.
Evaluating Compliance
The following procedures are used to evaluate compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Before an onsite inspection, the documents listed below should be obtained from State or EPA
files and reviewed to determine what regulations apply and what compliance problems may
exist.
• The State air pollution control regulations contained in the SIP (State regulations and
permits form the basis for the air compliance inspection and will vary from State to
State).
• Title V operating permit/application; the State operating and construction permits.
• The most current emissions inventory (check for sources subject to SIP, NSPS, and
NESHAPs requirements).
• The Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions
inventory. (The VOC inventory may not be included in the emissions inventory, but
reported separately under SARA Title III Form R submittal. More information on the
former submittal is found in the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
section.).
• The consent decrees/orders/agreements still in effect and related correspondence.
• The most recent inspection reports.
• The most recent monthly or quarterly Continuous Emission Monitoring/Continuous
Opacity Monitoring (CEM/COM) reports.
• AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) reports.
• Process descriptions, flow diagrams, and control equipment for air emission sources.
• Facility plot plan that identifies and locates the air pollution emission points.
• The on-site inspection should include a review of the records and documents listed
below:
- Process operating and monitoring records to determine if permit requirements
are being followed.
- Fuel analysis reports (including fuel sampling and analysis methods) to
determine if sulfur dioxide emission limits and/or other fuel requirements are
being met.
Appendix AQ- Page 893
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Reports of process/control equipment malfunctions causing reportable excess
emissions (refer to SIP to determine reportable malfunctions and report
requirements).
- Source test reports to determine if NSPS, NESHAPs, MACTs, and/or major
sources have demonstrated compliance with emission standards.
- CEM reports to determine if NSPS and SIP reporting requirements are being met
(reported emissions should be checked against raw data for accuracy, and
reported corrective actions should be checked for implementation).
- CEMS/COMS certification tests (relative accuracy and calibration drift) to verify
that performance specifications at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, are met.
- Records and reports specified in SIP regulations, NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT
subparts, and applicable permits.
The onsite inspection should also include the following:
• Visible Emission Observations (VEOs), by inspectors certified to read smoke within
the last 6 months, to determine compliance with SIP, NSPS, or NESHAPs opacity
limits (document non-compliance with EPA Method 9, 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A).
• A check of real time CEM measurements to determine compliance SIP, NSPS, or
NESHAPs limits (opacity CEM measurements can be compared against VEOs).
• A review of CEM/COM calibration procedures and frequency to determine ifthe
zero/ span check requirements and analyzer adjustment requirements of 40 CFR
Part 60 are being met.
• Observations of process and control equipment operating conditions to determine
compliance with permit conditions (if no permit conditions apply, control equipment
operating conditions can be compared to baseline conditions from stack tests or
manufacturer's specifications for proper operation).
• Observation of control equipment operating conditions and review of equipment
maintenance practices and records to determine proper operation of control
equipment.
• When inspecting a fuel refinery or terminal and when time permits, the investigator
should review records to assess compliance with fuel regulations under CAA section
11. Things to look for include compliance with the new reformulated gasoline
• requirements including Reid vapor pressure levels (during summer months only) and
oxygenate levels of outgoing gasoline, the sulfur content of outgoing diesel fuel, and
the lead level of unleaded gasoline leaving the refinery.
• When inspecting a facility with its own fleet of vehicles or garage, maintenance
records for the vehicles should be reviewed to determine compliance with Section
203 of the CAA. A review of air conditioning repair/maintenance records should also
be conducted to determine compliance with Section 609 of the CAA.
Appendix AQ- Page 894
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• A review of all sources to determine if existing, new, modified, or reconstructed
sources have construction and operating permits required by SIP (note other process
changes that may not require a permit but could affect emissions). For example:
- Are there any boilers, stationary diesel engines (emergency generators, lift
pumps), or waste gas boilers of any size? What are their capacities, when
installed or altered?
- Are there any incinerators for sludge, grease, grit, screenings, etc.? When were
they installed or altered?
- Are there any storage tanks storing any liquid except water? What are their
capacities, when installed or altered?
- Are there any solvent or gasoline tanks? What are their capacities, when installed
or altered?
- Are there any storage silos for storing solid particles (e.g., lime)? What are their
capacities, when installed or altered?
- Are there any air pollution control devices of the following types? When where
they installed or altered?
• Odor control equipment (carbon adsorbers, scrubbers) on such equipment as sludge
handling/storage tanks, pump stations, wet-wells, metering stations, grit screening,
headworks building?
• Waste gas burners such as digester flares, boilers, etc.?
• Scrubbers on pH adjustment process or pretreatment equipment (usually HCI
control)?
- Is there any shop equipment of the following types? When was it installed or
altered?
• Paint spray booths
• Shotblast booths, controlled (any size) or uncontrolled
• Solvent degreasers
- Is there any wastewater or water treatment equipment designed to reduce
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which may emit air contaminants, such as
aeration basins, surface impoundments, air strippers, roughing filters, trickling
filters, or oil/water separators? When was the equipment installed or altered?
- At industrial/commercial wastewater and pretreatment facilities, are there any
aeration basins, lagoons, or settling basins? When were they installed or
altered?
- At industrial/commercial treatment works, is there equipment used to dispense
odor reducing/masking agents? When was it installed or altered?
- At industrial/commercial treatment works, is there equipment used directly to
manufacture fertilizers (including mixers, blenders, conveyors, etc.)? When was
it installed or altered?
Appendix AQ- Page 895
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
C. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Basic Program
Public drinking water supply systems (i.e., that serve at least 25 people or have 15 service
connections for at least 60 days per year) are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1986. Public water systems are divided into two categories designated as
community and noncommunity systems. A community system serves people year-round,
whereas a noncommunity system serves people only for a portion of the time (e.g. hotels and
campgrounds). Different requirements apply to each type of system. Different requirements
also apply depending on whether the water supply source is surface water or groundwater. EPA
sets standards [known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the quality of water that can
be served by public water systems. Public systems must sample their water periodically and
report findings to the State (or EPA, if the State has not been delegated the authority to enforce
the SDWA). The systems must notify consumers if they do not meet the standards or have failed
to monitor or report. EPA is on a statutory schedule for promulgating a large number of new
MCLs.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program was developed pursuant to the SDWA (Public
Law 93-523), Part C—Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR Parts 124
and 144 through 148). The scope of the UIC program is the determination of the soundness of
construction and operation of injection wells as they relate to the protection of all underground
sources of drinking water. The UIC program regulates five classes of injection wells, summarized
as follows:
Class I Industrial, municipal, or hazardous waste disposal beneath the lowermost
underground source of drinking water (USDW)
Class II Oil and gas-related wells used for produced fluid disposal, enhanced recovery,
hydrocarbon storage, etc.
Class III Mineral extraction wells
Class IV Hazardous or radioactive waste disposal above or into a USDW Class V
Injection wells not included in Classes I through IV.
Evaluating Compliance
Monitoring requirements for water supply systems and whether the system can be reasonably
expected to routinely provide safe potable water should be determined. Many facilities
purchase their potable water supply from a nearby municipality. If no further treatment is
provided (e.g., chlorination by the facility), the facility remains a "consumer" rather than
becoming a "supplier," and consequently does not have the monitoring or reporting
requirements that a supplier would have. Nevertheless, the facility does have a responsibility to
ensure that their actions do not result in contamination of the municipal water supply (e.g.,
through cross-connection). The audit team should be alert to these possibilities.
Inspectors should:
Appendix AQ- Page 896
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
• Verify public water system records of monitoring and reports of exceedances of
MCLs
• Interview water system personnel to identify potential operations and maintenance
problems
• Check for appropriate treatment systems, such as adequate disinfection
• Check for cross-connections to the water supply and distribution system
• Obtain water source, treatment, and service area information
• Verify that sample locations are appropriate and representative for each
contaminant (i.e. sample collected in distribution system versus entry to distribution
system)
• Verify that sampling techniques and procedures are appropriate for UIC inspections,
the following should be reviewed:
• Current status of wells (active, abandoned, under construction repairs)
• Types of wastes discharged to wells
• UIC permit and permit conditions, if applicable
• Injection well construction
• Potential pathways of endangerment to Underground Sources of Drinking Water
(USDWs)
• Protection of USDWs from endangerment
• Frequency and type of Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT)
• Annular pressure
• Annular pressure monitoring
• Radioactive tracer surveys
• Installation methods for well plugging
• Remedial operation
• Applicability of land disposal restrictions to injection well operations
• Recordkeeping and evidence documentation
• Outlets for floor drains
• Connection to "dry" wells
• Evidence of surface ponding
• Presence of septic systems and/or leach fields
Several States and industries have requested approval of alternative mechanical integrity
testing methods or variances to accommodate special local hydrogeological conditions,
historical practices, or industry interests. Inspectors and field investigators should be cautioned
to keep current with special permit conditions and the status of any pending approvals/denials
of alternative mechanical integrity testing procedures and variances.
Appendix AQ- Page 897
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
D. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
This section describes those specific aspects of toxic substances control that are addressed by
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its associated rules and regulations (40 CFR Parts
702 through 799).
Basic Program
The regulation of toxins under TSCA is divided into two components for Agency enforcement
program management purposes.
1. "Chemical control" covers enforcement aspects related to specific chemicals
regulated under Section 6 of TSCA, such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and asbestos.
2. "Hazard evaluation" refers to the various recordkeeping, reporting, and submittal
requirements specified in Sections 5, 8, 12, and 13 of TSCA; although, some
elements of what might be termed "chemical control" are also addressed in these
sections. Sections 12 and 13 of TSCA, which pertain to chemical exports and
imports, respectively, will not be covered in this manual because of their special
nature and unique requirements.
Prior to discussing TSCA activities at a facility, the investigator must present appropriate facility
personnel with copies of two TSCA inspection forms:
1. Notice of Inspection—Shows purpose, nature, and extent of TSCA inspection.
2. TSCA Inspection Confidentiality Notice—Explains a facility's rights to claim
information at the facility as TSCA Confidential Business Information.
Before leaving the site, two additional forms must be completed, as appropriate:
1. Receipt for Samples and Documents—Itemizes all documents, photos, and
samples received by the investigator during the inspection.
2. Declaration of Confidential Business Information—Itemizes the information that
the facility claims to be TSCA Confidential Business Information.
Evaluating Compliance
Chemical Control
Although the controlled substances most frequently encountered during multi-media
investigations are PCBs, the investigator should determine if other regulated toxic substances
are present at the facility. Currently these include metal working fluids (Part 747), fully
halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes (40 CFR Part 762), and asbestos (40 CFR Part 763); additional
toxic substances may be regulated in the future. Because the probability of finding PCBs and
Appendix AQ- Page 898
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
PCB-items at the facility is greater than finding other TSCA-regulated substances, the following
discussion is directed toward an evaluation of compliance with proper PCB and PCB-item
handling procedures. If other TSCA-regulated substances are found, the investigator should
consult the regulations for appropriate requirements.
Management of PCBs/PCB-items is regulated under 40 CFR Part 761. In general, these
regulations address recordkeeping, marking and labeling, inspections, storage, and disposal.
Facilities that store and/or dispose of PCBs and PCB-items should have EPA-issued letters of
approval that contain facility operating and recordkeeping requirements in addition to those
specified in 40 CFR Part 761. The investigator must obtain a copy of these approvals and any
subsequent notifications to evaluate facility compliance. The inspector should review Part
761.30 to identify uses of PCB transformers which are prohibited beginning October 1,1990, but
with effective dates extending to October 1, 1993. The inspector should also review the
requirements found in Part 761.30 that allow the installation of PCB transformers for
emergency use.
In general, the compliance evaluation includes obtaining and reviewing information from
Federal, State, and local regulatory agency files; interviewing facility personnel regarding
material handling activity; examining facility records and inspecting materials handling units.
Specific investigation tasks include:
• Inspect all in-service electrical equipment, known or suspected of containing PCBs,
for leaks or lack of proper marking. A similar inspection should also be made of any
equipment that the facility is storing for reuse. Make certain that any remedial
actions were quick and effective in the case of leaks, spills, etc.
• If the above equipment includes any PCB transformers or capacitors, make certain
that all relevant prohibitions are being met, such as those involving enhanced
electrical protection, as well as other requirements in the Use Authorization section
of the PCB Rule. Make certain that any hydraulic or heat transfer systems suspected
of containing PCB fluids have been properly tested.
• Determine whether the facility is involved with servicing PCB items or
using/collecting/ producing PCBs in any manner. If so, make certain that the
appropriate requirements of the PCB Rule are being met.
• Determine whether the facility is involved with either the storage or disposal of
PCBs/PCB- items. Inspect all storage for disposal facilities for proper containment,
leaking items, proper marking, dates/time limits, location, protection from elements,
and other necessary requirements. If the facility disposes of PCBs, make certain that
proper methods are being employed and that design and operation of disposal units
is in accordance with regulatory requirements.
• Determine whether storage/disposal facilities are complying with the notification
and manifesting requirements contained in Subpart K of the PCB Rule.
• Thoroughly review, for purposes of adequacy and regulatory compliance, all records
and reports required by the PCB Rule including the following:
Appendix AQ- Page 899
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Annual documents
- Inspection logs
- PCB transformer registration letters
- Manifests/certificates of destruction
- Test data
- Spill cleanup reports
- EPA-issued permits or letters of approval
- SPCC plan, if one is necessary
- Operating records
- Notification of PCB activity.
Hazard Evaluation
Establishing compliance with the various hazard evaluation aspects of TSCA is best
accomplished through review and evaluation of the recordkeeping, reporting, and submittal
data required by the various regulatory components of Sections 5 and 8. In general, Section 5
addresses new chemicals (i.e., those not on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory) and
Section 8 addresses existing chemicals (i.e., those chemicals that are on the TSCA Chemical
Substances Inventory).
Much of the information obtained and reviewed under these two sections of TSCA will be
declared "TSCA Confidential Business Information" by company officials, and thus special
security procedures must be followed during review and storage of the documents.
40 CFR Parts 703 through 723 should be consulted for an explanation of TSCA terms and
definitions. The following list summarizes the different objectives for inspections of the key
TSCA Sections 5 and 8 components.
1. Premanufacture Notification (PMN)
a. Verify that all commercially manufactured or imported chemicals are on the
TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory, are covered by an exemption, or are not
subject to TSCA.
b. Verify that commercial manufacture or import of new chemicals did not begin
prior to the end of the 90-day review date, and not more than 30 days before the
Notice of Commencement (NOC) date. If commercial manufacture or import has
not begun, verify that no NOC has been submitted.
c. Verify the accuracy and documentation of the contents of the PMN itself.
2. Research and Development (R&D) Exemption
Appendix AQ- Page 900
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
a. Verify that the recordkeeping and notification requirements are being met for all
R&D chemicals.
b. Verify that "Prudent Laboratory Practices" and hazardous data searches
are adequately documented.
3. Test Marketing Exemption (TME)
a. Verify that the conditions spelled out in the TME application are being met,
particularly with respect to dates of production, quantity manufactured or
imported, number of customers and use(s).
b. Verify that the TME recordkeeping requirements are being met.
4. Low Volume Exemption (LVE) and Polymer Exemption (PE)
a. Verify that specific conditions of the exemption application are being met, and
that all test data have been submitted.
b. For an LVE, verify that the 1,000-kg limit per 12-month period has not
been exceeded. For a PE, ensure that the chemical structure and
monomer composition(s) are accurate.
c. Verify that recordkeeping requirements for both LVEs and PEs are being met.
5. 5(e)/5(f) Order. Rule, or Injunction
a. Verify that all conditions of the order, rule, or injunction are being followed,
including use of protective equipment, glove testing, training, and
record keeping.
b. If a testing trigger is specified, verify production volume and status of testing
activity.
6. Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)
a. Verify that no commercial production has occurred prior to the 90-day review date.
b. Verify that SNUR notices (i.e., Significant New Use Notices [SNUNs) have been
submitted for all applicable manufactured, imported, or processed chemicals.
c. Verify technical accuracy of SNUN and completeness of required recordkeeping.
7. Bona Fide Submittals
Appendix AQ- Page 901
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Determine the commercial production (or import) status and R&D history of those
bona fide chemicals not found on the confidential 8(b) inventory. Verify findings
against applicable PMN, TME, and other exemption.
8. Section 8(a) Level A PAIR and CAIR Report
a. Determine if Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) and Comprehe
nsive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR) reports have been submitted for all
8(a) Level A listed chemicals manufactured or imported by the facility.
b. Verify the accuracy of submitted PAIR information, particularly the reported
figures for total production volume and worker exposure levels.
c. Verify the accuracy of submitted CAIR information and if the report meets the
date specified in the regulation.
9. Section 8(b) Inventory Update Rule (IUR)
a. Verify the accuracy of the information submitted in response to the IUR.
b. Determine that required information was submitted by the deadline for all
chemicals subject to IUR.
10. Section 8(c) Recordkeeping
a. Determine if the facility has a Section 8(c) file and that allegations of
significant health and environmental harm on record are properly filed and
recorded.
b. Determine that all applicable allegations have been recorded and filed.
c. Determine if the facility has a written Section 8(c) policy and if the policy
includes outreach to the employees.
11. Section 8(d) Reporting
Determine if copies (or lists) of all unpublished health effects studies have been
submitted by manufacturers, importers, and processors for any Section 8(d) listed
chemical.
12. Section 8(e) Reporting
a. Verify that all Section 8(e) substantial risk reports to the Agency were accurate
and submitted within the required time frames.
Appendix AQ- Page 902
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
b. Verify that all substantial risk incidents and/or test results have been
reported to EPA.
c. Determine that the company has an adequate written policy addressing Section
8(e), and that it relieves employees of individual liability.
E. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Basic Program
Pesticides are regulated by FIFRA and regulations promulgated pursuant to FIFRA. Under FIFRA,
pesticide products must be registered by EPA before they are sold or distributed in commerce.
EPA registers pesticides on the basis of data adequate to show that, when used according to
label directions, they should not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the
environment. States have primary enforcement responsibility for FIFRA.
To ensure that previously registered pesticides meet current scientific and regulatory
standards, in 1972 Congress amended FIFRA to require the "reregistration" of all existing
pesticides.
Evaluating Compliance
The following list is used in conjunction with specific storage/use/disposal requirements found
on pesticide labels. FIFRA requires a written Notice of Inspection and written Receipt for
Samples collected.
• Determine types and registration status of all pesticides produced, sold, stored, and
used at the facility, particularly if any are restricted or experimental use pesticides.
• Determine use(s) of each pesticide.
• Determine certification status of facility/handlers.
- Verify who certifies facility/pesticide handlers (EPA, State, Department of
Defense).
- Determine if commercial or private applicator.
- If restricted-use pesticides are used, check if pesticide applicators are authorized
to use these pesticides.
- Check expiration dates on licenses/certificates.
• Review applicable records.
- Check previous inspection records and complaints.
- Check application records.
- Check restricted-use pesticides records (must be kept at least 2 years).
Document suspected violations accordingly.
- Check inventory records.
Appendix AQ- Page 903
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
- Check training records.
• Inspect storage, mixing/loading, and container disposal areas
- Check bulk storage areas for compliance with Federal/State rules.
- Check location, ventilation, segregation, shelter, and housekeeping of pesticide
storage handling areas. Check security, fire protection, and warning signs, as may
be required by State regulations.
- Check mixing equipment/procedures for reducing handlers' exposures to
pesticides.
- Check for safety equipment/procedures/use.
- Check container cleanup and disposal procedures.
• Pesticide waste disposal
- Check to see that pesticides are disposed of in accordance with applicable label
and RCRA requirements.
• Determine measures taken to ensure farm worker safety.
- Check pesticide use records for re-entry time limit notation.
- Check pesticide use records for informing farmer(s) or warning workers and/or
posting fields.
• Observe actual pesticide application.
- Observe mixing/loading and check calculations for proper use dilution.
- Observe when spray is turned on/off with respect to ends of field.
- Watch for drift or pesticide mist dispersal pattern.
- Note direction of spraying pattern and trimming techniques.
- Record wind speed and direction, airtemperature, and relative humidity.
- Observe application with respect to field workers, houses, cars, power lines, and
other obstacles.
- Determine if applicator and assisting personnel are wearing safety gear required
by the label.
F. Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Basic Program
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 is a free-standing law
contained within the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. EPCRA is
also commonly known as SARA Title III. EPCRA requires dissemination of information to State
and community groups and health professionals on chemicals handled at regulated facilities.
An EPCRA inspection verifies that the facility owner/operator has notified State and local
agencies of regulated activities; has submitted information to specific State and local agencies;
and has prepared and submitted all other required reports.
Appendix AQ- Page 904
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Evaluating Compliance
Emergency Planning (Sections 301 through 303)
EPA promulgated regulations that identify extremely hazardous substances and the levels to be
regulated under EPCRA. The inspector should determine whether the facility is subject to
EPCRA regulation. If the facility does meet the requirements, the inspector should verify
whether the facility owner/operator:
• Notified the State emergency response agency and the local emergency planning
committee that the facility is regulated under EPCRA.
• Designated a facility emergency coordinator to assist the local emergency planning
committee in the planning process.
• Notified the local emergency planning committee of the emergency coordinator's
identity.
Emergency Notification (Section 304)
The owner/operator of a facility subject to EPCRA must immediately report releases of
hazardous substances above the reportable quantity. Substances subject to this requirement
are the extremely hazardous substances listed in 40 CFR Part 355 and hazardous listed in 40
CFR Part 302. The inspector should verify whether an immediate notification (within 15
minutes) was made to the:
• State emergency response commission
• Local emergency planning committee
• National Response Center
Community Right-to-Know Requirements (Sections 311 through 312)
Manufacturing facilities subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) Hazardous
Communication regulation (29 CFR Part 1910) are required to prepare Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDS) for each hazardous chemical handled at the facility. OSHA revised its Hazardous
Communication Regulation, effective September 23, 1987, to require that MSDSs be prepared
by nonmanufacturing facilities. The inspector should verify that the facility owner/ operator has
sent the following to the State emergency response commission, the local emergency planning
committee, and the local fire department:
• MSDSs or a list of chemicals covered by MSDSs found at the facility above the
threshold planning quantity (40 CFR Part 370 Subpart B)
• An annual inventory (Tier 11 Form) of hazardous chemicals found at the facility
above the threshold planning quantity (40 CFR Part 370 Subpart D).
Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Section 313)
Covered facilities (40 CFR Part 372.22) that manufacture, process, or otherwise use certain
chemicals above specified amounts must annually report releases to the environment. The
Appendix AQ- Page 905
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
inspector should determine whether the facility owner/operator is required to submit this
annual report (Form R). The following criteria are applied to determine if the facility is required
to report:
• The facility has the equivalent of 10 or more full-time employees.
• The facility is in SIC codes:
- 10 (except 1011,1081, and 1094)
- 12 (except 1241)
- 20 through 39
- 4911, 4931, or 4939 (limited to facilities generating power for consumer use by
combusting coal and/or oil)
- 4953 (limited to RCRA Subtitle C facilities) o 5169 and 5171
- 7389 (limited to facilities engaged in solvent recovery services)
• The facility manufactured or processed in excess of 25,000 pounds or used in any
other manner 10,000 pounds or more of the chemicals listed on the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). The list of TRI chemicals can be found in the current year's reporting
instructions.
G. Pollution Prevention
Basic Program
EPA is developing an Agency-wide policy for pollution prevention. Present authorities were
established in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA (Section 3002). The
October 1990 Pollution Prevention Act established pollution prevention as a national priority.
The September 16, 1998, Executive Order 13101, Section 403, Federal Facility Compliance.
Evaluating Compliance
EPA has developed a policy regarding the role of inspectors in promoting waste minimization
(OSWER directory number 9938.10). As stated in the policy, to evaluate compliance, the
Inspector should:
• Check hazardous waste manifests for a correctly worded and signed waste
minimization certification.
• Determine whether this certification was manually signed by the generator or
authorized representative.
• Confirm that a waste minimization program is in place by requesting to see a written
waste minimization plan, ^requesting that the plan be described orally, or
requesting that evidence of a waste minimization program be demonstrated. The
inspector can, and should, visually check for evidence of a "program in place" onsite.
• Check the Biennial Report and/or Operating record of generators and TSDFs, as
appropriate. These documents should contain descriptions of waste minimization
Appendix AQ- Page 906
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
progress and a certification statements. If known omissions, falsifications, or
misrepresentations on any report or certification are suspected, criminal penalties
may apply and the case should be referred for criminal investigation.
• Check any waste minimization language included in the facility's permits, any
enforcement order, and settlement agreements. Verify that waste minimization
requirements are being satisfied.
The policy also states that the inspector should promote waste minimization by:
• Being familiar with, recommending, and distributing waste minimization literature.
• Referring the facility to the appropriate technical assistance program for more
specific or technical information.
• Providing limited, basic advice to the facility of obvious ways they can minimize their
waste. This advice should be issued in an informal manner with the caveat that it is
not binding in any way and is not related to regulatory compliance.
The multi-media inspection team can also document cross-media transfers of wastestreams,
that can result in false claims of waste minimization. For example, a facility could treat a solvent
wastewater stream in an air stripper that has no air pollution control devices. On paper, the
amount of sol vent discharged to a land disposal unit or sewer system could show a reduction,
but the pollutants are going into the air, possibly without a permit. Another example would be
a facility claiming a reduction in hazardous waste generated because the waste steam was
delisted.
Appendix AQ- Page 907
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Appendix AR -
National Multimedia Screening
Inspection Worksheet
Appendix AR - Page 908
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Inspector(s) Name 2. Date_
3. Facility Name/Address
4. Facility Contact(s)/Title(s)
5. Description of Facility Operations
SIC Code
Number of Employees
Operating Schedule
Major Products/Production Capacity
Appendix AR - Page 909
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
RCRA
Observations
1. Does the facility generate anything that looks like waste material that might contain
hazardous constituents?
2. If so, describe what the facility says regarding the RCRA regulatory status of the waste
material and their rational for such determination, (e.g., have they made a RCRA waste
identification and what was that determination? Have they determined the waste to be
exempt from regulation and why?
3. Describe the process that generates the waste material.
4. Do you see any containers of hazardous waste, land disposal units, lagoons, treatment units?
Approximately how many?
5. Were any of the units that contain or handle hazardous wastes (containers, berms, dikes,
tanks, piping, impoundments, etc.) in poor condition, unmarked, opened, leaking, cracked,
corroded, or in a condition that would allow the release or potential release of hazardous
Appendix AR - Page 910
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
wastes? If yes, describe unit(s). Any actual or evidence of past releases observed? If so, describe
waste (i.e., liquid, sludge, etc.) unit(s), and location.
6. Does the facility operate a boiler or industrial furnace which burns hazardous wastes? Was
there any incineration of hazardous waste on-site?
7. Was there any evidence of spills, leaks, or discharges of hazardous wastes? If so, provide
location and description.
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. If the facility is a generator of hazardous waste was there a notification of hazardous waste
activity? What is the quantity (kilograms/month) of hazardous wastes produced? How are they
produced?
2. What is the EPA Identification Number?
Appendix AR - Page 911
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
3. What was the basis (i.e. test, knowledge of process and waste) for determining if the facility
did or did not produce or handle hazardous wastes? Who made the determination?
Appendix AR - Page 912
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
UST
Observations
1. Are there any underground storage tanks?
2. Approximately how many? What are the contents? (Wastes, virgin petroleum, or
chemicals)
3. What type of leak detection is used? When was it last used?
4. Is there any evidence of leaks, spills, broken piping, broken fill/vent lines, or leaking pump
joints or valves? Provide location and description.
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. If the tanks are for virgin petroleum or chemicals (not wastes), are they registered with the
state? Date of registration? Date of tank(s) installation?
Appendix AR - Page 913
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SPCC
Observations
1. Does the facility have the capacity to store oil either in above or below ground tanks? How
many gallons? Does any tank have a capacity of more than 660 gallons in a single tank or does
the facility have a capacity of more than 1320 gallons in a number of tanks or a capacity of
more than 42,000 gallons below the ground?
2. What type of secondary containment is used at the facility? Were there any deficiencies in
the secondary containment (cracks, broken, dikes left open)? Is it adequate to contain the
entire contents of the largest tank?
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. Does the facility have a certified (signed by a P.E.) plan? When was it last updated?
2. Has there been any major changes to oil storage at the facility since the last modification
of the plan?
Appendix AR - Page 914
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
WETLANDS
Observations
1. Are there any wet areas near the facility with wetland-type vegetation (cattails, rushes,
sedges) that have been disturbed by waste disposal, ditching, or filling?
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. Does the facility have a federal section 404 permit or any state or local permit authorizing
the fill?
Appendix AR - Page 915
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
FIFRA
Observations
1. Does the facility produce pesticides?
2. Is the facility applying pesticides?
3. Where are the pesticides stored?
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. If the facility produces pesticides what is the establishment's registration number?
2. If the facility is applying pesticides what is the registration number of the pesticides?
Appendix AR - Page 916
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
AIR
Observations
1. Is there any asbestos on-site?
2. Is the facility undergoing or has the facility undergone any renovations or demolitions during
the last 18 months which involve the removal or disturbance of asbestos-containing materials?
Approximately how much asbestos (square feet or linear feet) was removed?
3. Does the facility have any coating or printing operations? Does the facility use any paints or
organic solvents? What, if any, type of air pollution control is used? Was it operating?
4. Were there any odors? What process was the source of the odors? Describe the odors.
5. Were there any visible (opaque smoke) emissions? What process was the source? Was
there any fugitive (not from a stack) emissions? Was the air pollution control equipment, if any,
operating? Describe source.
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. If asbestos was removed was notification provide to the State and EPA?
2. If the facility has coating or printing operations are they water based or organic solvent
based?
3. Does the facility handle/emit any of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) chemicals other than asbestos (mercury, beryllium, vinyl chloride,
benzene, arsenic, radionuclides)? Describe process.
Appendix AR - Page 917
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
4. Has the facility added new or expanded existing processes in the last two years? Was it
permitted by EPA of the State?
Appendix AR - Page 918
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
TSCA-PCBs
Observations
1. Did the facility have or does it have any PCB electrical equipment? What equipment (type
and quantity) is on-site?
2. Does the facility have a PCB equipment storage area for disposal or reuse? Describe the
storage area (i.e. concrete pad, walls, roof, curbs).
3. Are there any labels/markings on the PCB equipment?
4. Is there any leaking PCB electrical equipment? Describe.
5. Does the facility have any hydraulic systems? Any leaking?
Appendix AR - Page 919
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. If the facility has PCB electrical equipment was it tested? What were the test results?
2. If the facility has any hydraulic systems when were they tested for PCBs? What were the test
results?
Appendix AR - Page 920
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
WATER-NPDES
Observations
1. Does the facility use water in its manufacturing process?
2. Does the facility discharge to a stream, municipal sewer, or use subsurface disposal?
3. What process(es) generate wastewater? Is the wastewater treated? Is the effluent clear?
Does the treatment plant appear to be maintained (look for rust, dry basins, abandoned
equipment, etc.)?
4. Where does the storm water drain to?
5. Where do floor drains discharge?
Appendix AR - Page 921
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. How is the treatment plant's sludge disposed? How is it tested?
Appendix AR - Page 922
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
EPCRA
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. Were there any chemical releases in excess of the reportable Superfund quantities (see
below)? Who was provided the notification? Was it oral or written?
2. Does the facility manufacture, process, or use any toxic chemicals in a quantity greater than
10,000 lbs./yr.? Identity them. Are any of them section 313 chemicals41?
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, has the facility submitted the toxic chemical
release form (R)?
4. Does the facility have the Material Safety Data Sheets on-site and were they submitted to
the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and/or the Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC)?
5. Has the facility submitted the Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory forms to the
LEPC and SERC?
41 The chemicals subject to these requirements can be found in EPA publication number 560/4-92-011,
January 1992, "Title III, List of Lists".
Appendix AR - Page 923
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SDWA-UIC
Observations
1. Are there any discharges other than sanitary waste (i.e. industrial wastes) into or onto
(including drain fields) the ground? Is an on-site septic disposal system used? Describe the
discharges and disposal system.
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. Does the facility have or has it had any wells (dug, drilled or driven), dry wells, leachfields, or
septic systems? Did they receive(d) commercial or industrial waste (liquid and/or solid), cooling
water, or drainage from roof drains, floor drains, or parking lots? If yes, give a description.
2. Does the facility have a permit?
3. What is the current status of wells (active, abandoned, under construction, repairs)?
4. If the wells are inactive what was the date they were last used?
Appendix AR - Page 924
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
SDWA-PWS
Interview Questions/Records Review
1. What is the facility's source of drinking water? Does the facility have a private well? How
many people does it serve?
2. Is the water sampled and analyzed for contaminants? Are the results reported to the state or
EPA?
Appendix AR - Page 925
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. EPA Interim Revised NPDES Inspection Manual | 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. Is there any evidence of environmental impacts that haven't been addressed? Possible
examples include:
- additional evidence of spills, leaks
- vegetation damage in the surrounding area
- odors in the surrounding neighborhood
- neighborhood covered with "dusts"
- poor water quality in streams near the facility.
2. Were there situations of possible excessive occupational exposure that should be referred to
OSHA?
Appendix AR - Page 926
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
INSPECTION MANUAL
NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION MANUAL
Number: OECA-MANL-2017-OOl-RO
[1/20/2017]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
&EPA
EPA
Effective Date: 1/20/2017
Page 1 of 3
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual
OECA-MANL-2017-OOl-RO
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
Controlled Document
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual
Effective Date: 1/20/2017
Number: OECA-MANL-2017-001-RO
Author
Name: <AUTHOR>
Title: <TITLE>
Office:
Signature:
Date:
Approvals
Name: <AUTHOR>
Title: <TITLE>
Office:
Signature:
Date:
Name: <AUTHOR>
Title: <TITLE>
Office:
Signature:
Date:
Name: <AUTHOR>
Title: <TITLE>
Office:
Signature:
Date:
Name: <AUTHOR>
Title: <TITLE>
Office:
Signature:
Date:
Name: David Meredith
Title: Quality Assurance Manager
Office: OC
Signature:
Date:
EPA
Effective Date: 1/20/2017
Page 2 of 3
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual
OECA-MANL-2017-OOl-RO
</pre><hr><pre>
-------
Revision History
This table shows changes to this controlled document over time. The most recent version is presented
in the top row of the table. Previous versions of the document are maintained by the OECA Document
Control Coordinator.
History
Effective Date
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual Revision 1
1/20/2017
EPA
Effective Date: 1/20/2017
Page 3 of 3
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual
OECA-MANL-2017-OOl-RO
</pre><hr><pre>
------- </pre></td></tr></table></body></html> |