United States Environmental Protection Agency Office ofWater Washington, DC



# NPDESPermitWriters’ Manual

December 1996

Thestatements inthisdocument areintended solely asguidance. Thisdocument isnotintended, norcan itbe reliedon,tocreate any rightsenforceable byanyparty inlitigation withthe United States. EPAandState officials maydecidetofollow theguidance provided inthisdocument, ortoactatvariance with theguidance, basedonananalysis ofspecific sitecircumstances. This guidance mayberevisedwithout public notice to reflectchanges in EPA’spolicy.

Office

### ofWastewaterManagement U.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency Washington,DC 20460

## Acknowledgements

The revisions to this manual were made possible through acooperative team effort led by Dan Weese, Office ofWastewater Management. EPA gratefully acknowledges the contributions ofthe team members involved inthis effort (Greg Currey and Pat Bradley) for the countless hours spent and determination in bringing this effort to completion. Their commitment and dedication to this product was key to the NPDES Program’s mission of providing comprehensive programmatic guidance and technical support to its stakeholders. The revisions tothis manual would not have been realized without their assistance. EPA also wishes to thank Dave Hair and Jim Parker of Science Applications International Corporation for their contributions and invaluable support provided under contract 68-C4-0034.

The primary contact regarding questions or comments to this manual is: Dan Weese, Environmental Engineer Office ofWastewater Management Permits Division (4203) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 MStreet, SW Washington, DC 20460

Cover Photo: Lower Yellowstone falls Yellowstone National Park Photograph by DaveHall

## Foreword

Since its establishment inthe 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program has achieved significant reductions in pollutant discharges, which inturn has resulted intremendous improvement to the quality of our Nation’s water resources. As we move into the 21st century, the objective ofthe national program will not only be to develop solutions which address remaining impacts to surface waters, but to do so in ways that continue to improve the effectiveness ofthe NPDES Program and allow us to measure environmental progress and results. As EPA and States take steps to improve the NPDES Program and how it is implemented, it isessential that all parties involved understand the fundamental basis ofthe NPDES Program. The NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual is principally designed to help permit writers prepare legally defensible and enforceable NPDES permits. Its purpose isto serve as a useful resource in providing the technical and legal considerations which support the development of NPDES permits. However, the manual is also intended to serve as a resource for others, including stakeholders and the regulated community, interested inthe NPDES permitting process. Only after reaching some common level of understanding ofthe NPDES Program and the issues surrounding the permitting process, can EPA, State permitting authorities, and stakeholders develop optimal solutions to improve the quality of our surface water resources. To that end, Iwould like to take this opportunity to highlight some ofthe changes taking place within the NPDES Program:

• Stakeholder involvement and Public Participation-EPA iscommitted to getting permittees and other interested parties involved at an early stage of the permit development and decision making process. For example, several NPDES authorities involve permittees and stakeholders inthe permit development phase before the public notice process. This early involvement provides an opportunity for the permitting authorities, permittees and stakeholders to identify errors, address questions and develop optimal solutions.

• Watershed Approach--The Watershed Approach is EPA’s renewed emphasis to address all stressors within ahydrologically defined drainage basin instead ofviewing individual pollutant sources in isolation of other stressors. The watershed approach allows us to recognize that the health of our water resources are the result of complex interactions ofvarious pollution sources, habitat conditions, flow and many other factors. EPA believes that these problems are best addressed through the development ofwatershed plans that integrate controls of point and nonpoint sources and provide decision-makers with an opportunity to consider issues such asForeword protection and restoration of habitats, drinking water sources, ground water protection and other environmental and social objectives. EPA strongly encourages innovative approaches that implement NPDES requirements in ways that achieve greater environmental results at the least cost.

• Refining of Point Source Focus-As we place greater emphasis on environmental results we realize that certain sources of pollution may require increased national attention to achieve local watershed goals. EPA is actively engaged with States, environmental groups and the regulated community to.address pollution problems from wet weather sources (CSOs, storm water and sanitary sewer overflows), mining operations, concentrated animal feeding operations and other key point sources where substantial pollution reduction may be possible. EPA isconfident that involving stakeholders inthe development of solutions for these remaining sources of pollution will provide optimal solutions.

• Burden Reduction-EPA isalso pursuing regulatory reforms to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to reduce administrative burdens. For example, inJune 1995, EPA promulgated a rule to eliminate obsolete rules. In 1996, EPA finalized national guidance on ways to reduce reporting and monitoring for permittees that have good historical compliance records. As we move forward, we will continue to explore ways to promote watershed, streamlining, and reinvention concepts discussed above to facilitate the continual evolution and success ofthe NPDES Program. As such, this manual isexpected to be revised periodically to reflect improvements, regulatory changes, and policy decisions. Thank you for using this permit writers’ guide. We hope that itserves as a valuable resource and tool for helping to achieve healthy water resources throughout the Nation.

James F.Pendergast Acting Director Permits Division

# Contents

Page

List ofAcronyms

..... ..... ..... .................. ......... . .... .A-1 Glossary ofTerms

... ..... .. .. .... ............. ........... .. ... G-1 Chapter l-Introduction

..... ....... ....................... .... . .. . 1 1.1 History and Evolution ofthe NPDES Program

............. .. ... . 2 Chapter 2 -Regulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Program

..... ... 7 2.1 Regulatory Framework ofthe NPDES Program

........... . ... ... 7 2.2 Scope ofthe NPDES Program

. ... .. .. ..... ..... ... . ... .. ... 8 2.3 NPDES Program Areas

. .. ...... ... .. ........ ..... .. ... ... 14 2.3.1 NPDES Program Areas Applicable to Municipal Sources

.. ... 14 2.3.2 NPDES Program Areas Applicable to Industrial Sources

.. ... 18 Chapter 3-Overview ofthe NPDES Permitting Process

.... ........ .. ..... 21 3.1 Types of Permits
........................................ 21 3.2 Major Components ofa Permit
............................. 23 3.3 Overview ofthe Development/Issuance Process for NPDES Individual Permits

.............................................. 23 3.4 Overview ofthe Development/Issuance Process for NPDES General Permits

.............................................. 26 3.5 Roles and Responsibilities ofthe Federal and State Authorities
...... 27 Chapter 4-The Permit Application Process

. ... ... ... ... .... . .... ... .. . 29 4.1 NPDES Permit Application Forms
........................... 29 4.1.1 Municipal Application Requirements

(Form A and Short Form A)

.................. 31 4.1.2 Non-Municipal Permit Application Requirements
........... 32 4.1.3 Application Requirements for NPDES General Permits

....... 36 4.2 Application Deadlines
.................................... 36 4.3 Review ofthe Application
................................. 37 4.3.1 The Complete Application
........................... 39 4.3.2 Common Omissions and Errors inApplications
............ 39 4.3.3 The Accurate Application
............................ 42
EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -iContents

4.4 Facility Information Review

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 43 4.4.1 Background Information Review

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.4.2 Facility Site Visits

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.5 Confidential Information

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 47 Chapter 5-Technology-Based Effluent Limits

. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.1 Application of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations for Non-Municipal Dischargers

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 50 5.1.1 Statutory and Regulatory Foundation

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 50 5.1.2 Development of National Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Performance Standards

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.1.3 General Considerations Concerning the Use of Effluent Limitation Guidelines

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 5.1.4 Best Professional Judgment Permit Limits

. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 68 5.2 Application of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations for Municipal Dischargers

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.2.1 Secondary Treatment

. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . 75 5.2.2 Equivalent-to-Secondary Treatment Definition

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Chapter 6-Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6.1 Overview of Water Quality Standards

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 88 6.7.1 Components of Water Quality Standards

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 6.1.2 Establishing Water Quality Criteria

. .. . ... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 91 6.1.3 Future Directions for Water Quality Standards

. .. . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.2 Approaches to Implementing Water Quality Standards

. . .. . . . . .. . . 94 6.2.1 Chemical-Specific Approach

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 94 6.2.2 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Approach

.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 94 6.2.3 Biological Criteria or Biological Assessment Approach

. . . . .. . 98 6.3 Determining the Need for WQBELs

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 99 6.3.1 Defining “Reasonable Potential” to Exceed Applicable Criteria

. 99 6.3.2 Determining Reasonable Potential With Effluent Monitoring Data

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6.3.3 Determining Reasonable Potential Without Effluent Monitoring Data.......................................... 103 6.4 Exposure Assessment and Wasteload Allocation

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 104 6.4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 104 6.4.2 Calculating Wasteload Allocations

.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 6.4.3 Selecting a Water Quality Model

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 6.5 Permit Limit Derivation

. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 111 6.5.1 Expression of Permit Limits

.. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 112 6.5.2 Limits Derived from Steady-State Model Outputs

. . . .. . . . . . 112 6.5.3 Limits Derived from Dynamic Model Outputs

.. . . . . . . . . . . . 114 6.5.4 Special Considerations Permits Protecting Human Health

. . . 114

ii -EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter7-Monitoring and Reporting Conditions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 115

7.1 Establishing Monitoring Conditions

. . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . .. . 116 7.1.1 Monitoring Location

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 117 7.1.2 Monitoring Frequency

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . 119 7.1.3 Sample Collection Methods

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 122 7.1.4 Analytical Methods

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 7.1.5 Other Considerations in Establishing Monitoring Requirement

. 127 7.1.6 Establishing Monitoring Conditions for Unique Discharges

. . . 129 7.2 Reporting and’ Recordkeeping Requirements

.. . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . 134 Chapter 8-Special Conditions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 8.1 General Types of Special Conditions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 8.1.1 Special Studies and Additional Monitoring

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 8.1.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 8.1.3 Pollution Prevention

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 8.1.4 Compliance Schedules

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 8.2 Permit Conditions Addressing Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activities

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 149 8.3 Special Conditions for Municipal Facilities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 8.3.1 The National Pretreatment Program

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 8.3.2 Municipal Sewage Sludge

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 8.3.3 Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 8.3.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 8.3.5 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)

. . . . . . .. . 164 Chapter 9-Standard Conditions of NPDES Permits

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 9.1 Types of Standard Conditions

. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 168 9.2 Other Standard Conditions

.. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Chapter 10-Variances to Permit Requirements and Other Regulatory

Considerations

. . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 171 10.1 Variances to Technology-Based Permit Requirements

. . . . . . . . . .. . 171 10.1.1Economic Variances

. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 10.1.2 Variances Based on Localized Environmental Factors

. . . . . . 173 10.1.3 Marine Discharge Variances

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 10.1.4 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 10.1.5 Thermal Discharge Variances

.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 10.1.6 NetCredits

. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 176 10.2 Variances to Water Quality-Based Permit Requirements

. . . . . . . . . . 176 10.2.1 Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria Modification

. . . . . . . . . . . 177 10.2.2 Designated Use Reclassification

. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 177 10.2.3 Water Quality Standard Variance

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - iiiContents

10.3 Additional Programmatic Considerations and Requirements

........ 178 10.3.1 Anti-Backsliding

.................................. 178 10.3.2 Considerations for Other Federal Laws

................. 185 Chapter 11-Administrative Process

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . 191
11.1 Documentation For Development of the Draft Permit

............. 192 11.1.1 Administrative Record

............................. 193 11.1.2 Fact Sheets and Statements of Basis

.................. 194 11.2 Items to Address Prior to Issuance of a Final Permit

............. 197 11.2.1 Public Notice

.................................... 198 11.2.2 Public Comments

................................ 199 11.2.3 Public Hearing

................................... 201 11.2.4 State/Tribal Roles in Reviewing Draft Permit

............ 202 11.2.5 Schedule for Final Permit Issuance

.................... 203 11.3 Administrative Actions After Final Permit Issuance

.............. 203 11.3.1 Permit Appeals

.................................. 204 11.3.2 Permit Modification, Revocation, Termination, and Transfer

. . 206 11.3.3 Termination of Permits

............................. 208 11.3.4 Transfer of Permits

............................... 209 Chapter 12-Permit Compliance and Enforcement

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 12.1 Overview

............................................ 211 12.2 Compliance Monitoring

.................................. 212 12.2.1 Compliance Review

............................... 212 12.2.2 Compliance Inspections

............................ 213 12.3 Quarterly Noncompliance Reports

.......................... 214 12.4 Enforcement

.......................................... 216 12.5 Public Participation

..................................... 218 12.6 Compliance Assistance and Voluntary Compliance Policies

........ 218
Appendix A Index to NPDES Regulations Appendix B Effluent Guidelines and Standards Appendix C List of SIC Codes Appendix D How to Obtain Additional EPA Documents

iv -EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# List of Exhibits

EXHIBIT 1-1 EXHIBIT 2-1 EXHIBIT 2-2 EXHIBIT 2-3 EXHIBIT 3-1 EXHIBIT 3-2

EXHIBIT 4-1 EXHIBIT 4-2 EXHIBIT 5-1 EXHIBIT 5-2 EXHIBIT 5-3 EXHIBIT 5-4 EXHIBIT 5-5 EXHIBIT 5-6 EXHIBIT 5-7 EXHIBIT 6-1 EXHIBIT 6-2 EXHIBIT 6-3 EXHIBIT 7-1 EXHIBIT 7-2 EXHIBIT 7-3 EXHIBIT 7-4 EXHIBIT 7-5 EXHIBIT 8-1 EXHIBIT 8-2 EXHIBIT 8-3 Page

Organization ofthe Clean Water Act
...................... 4 Federal NPDES Regulations (40 CFR Part 122)

.............. 9 Sources of Discharge to Waters ofthe United States

.......... 11 NPDES Program Areas and Applicable Regulations

........... 12 NPDES Permit Components

............................ 24 Major Steps Involved in Developing and Issuing an Individual NPDES Permit
.............................. 25 Applications Forms Required for NPDES Discharges

.......... 30 Permit Application Review
............................. 38 Statutory Deadlines for BPT, BAT, and BCT

................ 53 Effluent Guidelines Flowchart
........................... 54 ELGs for Iron and Steel Manufacturing
.................... 57 OCPSF Effluent Limitations Guidelines

.................... 62 BPJ Permitting Tools
................................. 72 Secondary Treatment Standards
......................... 76 State-Specific ASRs
.................................. 84 Components of an Integrated Approach to Water Quality-Based Toxics Control
...................................... 95 Basic Mass Balance Water Quality Equation
............... 102 Components of aTMDL
.............................. 105 Examples of Specifying Sampling Locations in Permits

........ 120 Cornpositing Methods
............................... 126 Estimated Costs for Common Analytical Procedures

.......... 128 Minimum Requirements for Sewage Sludge Monitoring, Based on Method of Sludge Use or Disposal
............... 133 Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
..................... 135 Categories ofCSO Permitting Conditions
.................. 162 Nine Minimum CSO Controls
.......................... 163 Elements ofthe Long-Term CSO Control Plan
.............. 163

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -v

### ListofExhibits

EXHIBIT 10-1 Anti-Backsliding Rules Relating to Water Quality-Based Effluent

limitations

............................ . ... ... . .... 181 EXHIBIT 11-1 NPDES Permitting Administrative Process

................. 192 EXHIBIT 11-2 Elements ofthe Draft NPDES Permit Administrative Record

.... 194 EXHIBIT 11-3 Elements ofthe Administrative Records for a Final Permit

..... 195 EXHIBIT 11-4 Required Contents of a Fact Sheet

...................... 196 EXHIBIT 11-5 Actions That Must Receive Public Notice

.................. 198 EXHIBIT 11-6 Contents ofthe Public Notice

.......................... 199 EXHIBIT 11-7 Conditions Requiring Major Modification

.................. 207 EXHIBIT 11-8 Conditions Requiring Minor Modification

.................. 208

vi-EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# List ofAcronyms

Acronym ACR ANPRM ASR ASTM BAT BCT BMP BOD BOD, BPJ BPT CBOD CERCLA CERI CFR ChV COD CSO CSS CV CWA DMR DO DWO EIS ELG EMMI EPA ESA FDF FR FWS GC GC/MS gpd IC Full Phrase

Acute-to-Chronic Ratio Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Alternative State Requirement American Society for Testing and Materials Best Available Technology Economically Achievable Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology Best Management Practice Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day BOD Best Professional Judgment Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available Carbonaceous BOD Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilities Act Center for Environmental Research Information Code of Federal Regulations Chronic Value Chemical Oxygen Demand Combined Sewer Overflow Combined Sewer System Coefficient ofVariation Clean Water Act Discharge Monitoring Report Dissolved Oxygen Dry Weather Overflow Environmental Impact Statement Effluent Limitations Guidelines Environmental Monitoring Methods Index Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Fundamentally Different Factor Federal Register Fish and Wildlife Service Gas Chromatography Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy Gallons per Day Inhibition Concentration
EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -A-1List of Acronyms

l/l LA LC LC50 LD50 LOEC LTA LTCP MCL MDL MEP mg/l mgd MPN MS4 NEPA NHPA NMC NMFS NOEC NOI NPDES NSPS NTIS O&M PCS PL POTW PPETS PPIC PQL PSD PSES PSNS QA QC QNCR RAPP R&D RCRA RNC SIC SIP SNC SPCC Infiltration/Inflow

Load Allocation Lethal Concentration Concentration at which 50% of test organisms die in a specified time period Dose at which 50% of test organisms die in a specific time period Lowest Observed Effect Concentration Long Term Average Long Term Control Plan Maximum Contaminant Level Method Detection Limit Maximum Extent Practicable Milligram per Liter Million Gallons per Day Most Probable Number Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Nine Minimum Controls National Marine Fisheries Service No Observable Effect Concentration Notice of Intent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System New Source Performance Standards National Technical Information Service Operations and Maintenance Permit Compliance System Public Law Publicly Owned Treatment Works Pretreatment Permits and Enforcement Tracking System Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse Practical Quantification Limit Prevention Significant Deterioration Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources Pretreatment Standards for New Sources Quality Assurance Quality Control Quarterly Noncompliance Report Refuse Act Permit Program Research and Development Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reportable Noncompliance Standard Industrial Classification State Implementation Plan Significant Noncompliance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
A-2 -EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of Acronyms

SS SSO STORET TCLP TIE TKN TOC TMDL TRC TRE TRI TS TSCA TSD TSDF TSS TTO TUa TUc TVS TWTDS USC USGS VOC WET WLA WQA WQBEL WQS Suspended Solids

Sanitary Sewer Overflow EPA Storage and Retrieval Database Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Toxicity Identification Evaluation Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Organic Carbon Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Review Criteria Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Toxic Release Inventory Total Solids Toxic Substances Control Act Technical Support Document Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Total Suspended Solids Total Toxic Organics acute Toxic Units chronic Toxic Units Total Volatile Solids Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage United States Code United States Geological Survey Volatile Organic Compound Whole Effluent Toxicity Waste Load Allocation Water Quality Act of 1987 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit(s) Water Quality Standard(s)

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -A-3

# Glossary ofTerms

This glossary includes a collection ofthe terms used inthis manual and an explanation of each term. To the extent that definitions and explanations provided in this glossary differ from those in EPA regulations or other official documents, they are intended for use in understanding this manual only.

. 401(a) Certification-A requirement of Section 401(a) ofthe Clean Water Act that all federally issued permits be certified by the State inwhich the discharge occurs. The State certifies that the proposed permit will comply with State water quality standards and other State requirements.

. Acute-A stimulus severe enough to rapidly induce an effect; in aquatic toxicity tests, an effect observed in 96 hours or less istypically considered acute. When referring to aquatic toxicology or human health, an acute effect is not always measured interms of lethality.

• Anti-backsliding-A provision inthe Federal Regulations [CWA §303(d)(4); CWA §402(c); CFR §122.44(l)] that requires a reissued permit to be as stringent as the previous permit with some exceptions.

. Antidegradation- Policies which ensure protection ofwater quality for a particular water body where the water quality exceeds levels necessary to protect fish and wildlife propagation and recreation on and inthe water. This also includes special protection ofwaters designated as outstanding natural resource waters. Antidegradation plans are adopted by each State to minimize adverse effects on water.

. Authorized Program or Authorized State-A State, Territorial, Tribal, or interstate NPDES program which has been approved or authorized by EPA under 40 CFR Part 123.

. Average Monthly Discharge Limitations -The highest allowable average of daily discharges over acalendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during that month divided by the number of days on which monitoring was performed (except inthe case of fecal coliform).

. Average Weekly Discharge Limitation-The highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that week.
EPA NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual -G-7Glossary ofterms

• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)- Technology-based standard established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) as the most appropriate means available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in general, represent the best existing performance of treatment technologies that are economically achievable within an industrial point source category or subcategory.

• Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)-Technologybased standard for the discharge from existing industrial point sources of conventional pollutants including BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, oil and grease. The BCT is established in light of a two-part “cost reasonableness” test which compares the cost for an industry to reduce its pollutant discharge with the cost to a POTW for similar levels of reduction of a pollutant loading. The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find limits which are reasonable under both tests before establishing them as BCT.

• Best Management Practice (BMP)-Permitcondition used in place of or in conjunction with effluent limitations to prevent or control the discharge of pollutants. May include schedule of activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedure, or other management practice. BMPs may include, but are not limited to, treatment requirements, operating procedures, or practices to control plant site runoff, spillage, leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.

• Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)-The first level of technology-based standards established by the CWA to control pollutants discharged to waters of the U.S. BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the average of the best existing performance by plants within an industrial category or subcategory.

• Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)-The method used by permit writers to develop technology-based NPDES permit conditions on a case-by-case basis using all reasonably available and relevant data.

• Bioassay-A test used to evaluate the relative potency of a chemical or a mixture of chemicals by comparing its effect on a living organism with the effect of a standard preparation on the same type of organism.

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)-A measurement of the amount of oxygen utilized by the decomposition of organic material, over a specified time period (usually 5 days) in a wastewater sample; it is usedas a measurement of the readily decomposable organic content of a wastewater.

G-2 - EPA NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual

### Glossary ofTerms

. Bypass-The intentional diversion ofwastestreams from any portion of a treatment (or pretreatment) facility.

l Categorical Industrial User (CIU)-An industrial user subject to National categorical pretreatment standards.

l Categorical Pretreatment Standards-Limitations on pollutant discharges to publicly owned treatment works promulgated by EPA in accordance with Section 307 ofthe Clean Water Act that apply to specified process wastewaters of particular industrial categories [40 CFR 5403.6 and Parts 4054711.

l Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)-A measure ofthe oxygen-consuming capacity of inorganic and organic matter present inwastewater. COD is expressed as the amount ofoxygen consumed in mg/t. Results do not necessarily correlate to the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) because the chemical oxidant may react with substances that bacteria do not stabilize.

l Chronic-A stimulus that lingers or continues for a relatively long period of time, often one-tenth ofthe life span or more. Chronic should be considered a relative term depending on the life span of an organism. The measurement of achronic effect can be reduced growth, reduced reproduction, etc., inaddition to lethality.

. Clean Water Act (CWA)-The Clean Water Act isan act passed by the U.S. Congress to control water pollution. Itwas formerly referred to as the Federaj Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., as amended by: Public Law 96-483; Public Law 97-117; Public Laws 95-217, 97-l 17, 97440, and 100-04.

. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)-A codification ofthe final rules published daily inthe Federal Register. Title 40 ofthe CFR contains the environmental regulations.

l Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)-A discharge of untreated wastewater from acombined sewer system at a point prior to the headworks of a publicly owned treatment works. CSOs generally occur during wet weather (rainfall or snowmelt). During periods ofwet weather, these systems become overloaded, bypass treatment works, and discharge directly to receiving waters.

66% NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual -G-3Glossary ofTerms

. Combined Sewer System (CSS)-A wastewater collection system which conveys sanitary wastewaters (domestic, commercial and industrial wastewaters) and storm water through asingle pipe to a publicly owned treatment works for treatment prior to discharge to surface waters.

. Compliance Schedule-A schedule of remedial measures included in a permit or an enforcement order, including a sequence of interim requirements (for example, actions, operations, or milestone events) that lead to compliance with the CWA and regulations.

. Composite Sample-Sample composed oftwo or more discrete samples. The aggregate sample will reflect the average water quality covering the cornpositing or sample period.

l Conventional Pollutants-Pollutants typical of municipal sewage, and for which municipal secondary treatment plants are typically designed; defined by Federal Regulation [40 CFR 9401 .16] as BOD, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria, oil and grease, and pH.

. Criteria-The numeric values and the narrative standards that represent contaminant concentrations that are not to be exceeded in the receiving environmental media (surface water, ground water, sediment) to protect beneficial uses.

. Daily Discharge-The discharge of a pollutant measured during any 24- hour period that reasonably represents a calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limitations expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge iscalculated as the total mass ofthe pollutant discharged during the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement (e.g., concentration) the daily discharge iscalculated as the average measurement ofthe pollutant throughout the day (40 CFR 3122.2).

. Daily Maximum Limit-The maximum allowable discharge of pollutant during acalendar day. Where daily maximum limitations are expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge isthe total mass discharged over the course ofthe day. Where daily maximum limitations are expressed in terms of a concentration, the daily discharge isthe arithmetic average measurement ofthe pollutant concentration derived from all measurements taken that day.

. Development Document-A report prepared during the development of an effluent limitation guideline by EPA that provides the data and methodology used to develop limitations guidelines and categorical pretreatment standards for an industrial category.

G-4 - BEPA NPDES Permit Writer Training ManualGlossary of Terms

.

.

. Director-The Regional Administrator or State Director, as the context requires, or an authorized representative. When there is no approved State program, and there isan EPA administered program, Director means the Regional Administrator. When there isan approved State program, “Director” normally means the State Director. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)-The form used (including any subsequent additions, revisions, or modifications) to report self-monitoring results by NPOES permittees. OMRs must be used by approved States as well as by EPA. Draft Permit-A document prepared under 40 CFR 5124.6 indicating the Director’s tentative decision to issue, deny, modify, revoke and reissue, terminate, or reissue a permit. A notice of intent toterminate a permit, and a notice of intent to deny a permit application, as discussed in 40 CFR 9124.5, are considered draft permits. A denial of a request for modification, revocation and reissuance, ortermination, as discussed in 40 CFR 5124.5, is not adraft permit. Effluent Limitation-Any restriction imposed by the Director on quantities, discharge rates, and concentrations of pollutants which are discharged from point sources into waters ofthe United States, the waters ofthe contiguous zone, or the ocean. Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG)-A regulation published by the Administrator under Section 304(b) of CWA that establishes national technology-based effluent requirements for aspecific industrial category. Fact Sheet- A document that must be prepared for all draft individual permits for NPDES major dischargers, NPDES general permits, NPDES permits that contain variances, NPDES permits that contain sewage sludge land application plans and several other classes of permittees. The document summarizes the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit and tells how the public may comment (40 CFR 5124.8 and 9124.56). Where afact sheet is not required, a statement of basis must be prepared (40 CFR 9124.7). Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)-Those components of a petitioner’s facility that are determined to be so unlike those components considered by EPA during the effluent limitation guideline and pretreatment standards rulemaking that the facility isworthy of avariance from the effluent limitations guidelines or categorical pretreatment standards. General Permit-An NPDES permit issued under 40 CFR $122.28 that authorizes acategory ofdischarges under the CWA within a geographical 8fp# NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual -G-5Glossary of Terms

area. A general permit is not specifically tailored for an individual discharger.

l Grab Sample-A sample which istaken from awastestream on a one-time basis without consideration ofthe flow rate ofthe wastestream and without consideration oftime.

. Hazardous Substance-Any substance, other than oil, which, when discharged inany quantities into waters ofthe U.S., presents an imminent and substantial danger tothe public health or welfare, including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines and beaches (Section 311 ofthe CWA); identified by EPA as the pollutants listed under 40 CFR Part 116.

. Indirect Discharge-The introduction of pollutants into a municipal sewage treatment system from any nondomestic source (i.e., any industrial or commercial facility) regulated under Section 307(b), (c), or (d) ofthe CWA.

. Instantaneous Maximum Limit-The maximum allowable concentration of a pollutant determined from the analysis ofany discrete or composite sample collected, independent ofthe flow rate and the duration ofthe sampling event.

. Local Limits-Conditional discharge limits imposed by municipalities upon industrial or commercial facilities that discharge to the municipal sewage treatment system.

. Major Facility-Any NPDES facility or activity classified as such by the Regional Administrator, or inthe case of approved State programs, the Regional Administrator inconjunction with the State Director. Major municipal dischargers include allfacilities with design flows of greater than one million gallons per day and facilities with EPA/State approved industrial pretreatment programs. Major industrial facilities are determined based on specific ratings criteria developed by EPA/State.

. Mass-Based Standard-A discharge limit that is measured in a mass unit such as pounds per day.

. Method Detection Limit (MDL)-Defined as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration isgreater than zero and isdetermined from analysis of a sample inagiven matrix containing the analyte.

. Million Gallons per Day (mgd)-A unit offlow commonly used for wastewater discharges. One mgd isequivalent to 1.547 cubic feet per second.

G-6-8B# NPDES Permit Writer Training ManualGlossary of Tern18

l Mixing Zone-An area where an effluent discharge undergoes initial dilution and is extended to cover the secondary mixing inthe ambient water body. A mixing zone isan allocated impact zone where water quality criteria can be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions are prevented.

. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)-A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) owned by a State, city, town or other public body, that isdesigned or used for collecting or conveying storm water, which is not acombined sewer, and which isnot part of a publicly owned treatment works. Commonly referred to as an “MS4” [40 CFR $122.26(b)(8)].

. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESj-The national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of CWA.

. National Pretreatment Standard or Pretreatment Standard-Any regulation promulgated by the EPA inaccordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) ofthe CWA that applies to a specific category of industrial users and provides limitations on the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. This term includes the prohibited discharge standards under 40 CFR 5403.5, including local limits [40 CFR 9403.3(j)].

. New Discharger-Any building, structure, facility, or installation:
a. From which there isor may be adischarge of pollutants; b. That did not commence the discharge of pollutants at that particular site prior to August 13, 1979;
c. Which is not a new source; and d. Which has never received afinally effective NPDES permit for discharges at that site.

. New Source-Any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there isor may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction ofwhich commenced:
a. After promulgation of standards of performance under Section 306 of the CWA which are applicable to such source; or

8e# NPDES Permit Writer Training 

### Manual-G-7Wcmsary ofTerms
b. After proposal of standards of performance in accordance with Section 306 ofthe CWA which are applicable to such source, but only ifthe standards are promulgated inaccordance with Section 306 ofthe CWA within 120 days oftheir proposal.
c. Except as otherwise provided inan applicable new source performance standard, asource isa new source ifitmeets the definition in 40 CFR 5122.2; and i. Itisconstructed at asite atwhich no other source is located; or ii. Ittotally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or iii. Its processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. Indetermining whether these processes are substantially independent, the Director shall consider such factors as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant; and the extent to which the new facility is engaged inthe same general type of activity as the existing source.

. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)-Technology-based standards for facilities that qualify as new sources under 40 CFR $122.2 and 40 CFR 5122.29. Standards consider that the new source facility has an opportunity to design operations to more effectively control pollutant discharges.

. Nonconventional Pollutants-All pollutants that are not included inthe list of conventional ortoxic pollutants in40 CFR Pat-l401. Includes pollutants such as chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen, and phosphorus.

. pH-A measure ofthe hydrogen ion concentration ofwater or wastewater; expressed as the negative log ofthe hydrogen ion concentration in mg/l. A pH of 7 isneutral. A pH less than 7 isacidic, and a pH greater than 7 is basic.

. Point Source-Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fixture, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel, or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

G-8 -&BY4 NPDES Permit Writer Training ManualGlossary of 

### Terms

.

.

. Pollutant-Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials (except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. Pollutant, Conservative-Pollutants that do not readily degrade inthe environment, and which are mitigated primarily by natural stream dilution after entering receiving bodies ofwaters. Included are pollutants such as metals. Pollutant, Non-Conservative-Pollutants that are mitigated by natural biodegradation or other environmental decay or removal processes in the receiving stream after in-stream mixing and dilution have occurred. Practical Quantification Limit (PQL)-The lowest level that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. Pretreatment-The reduction ofthe amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration ofthe nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works [40 CFR 9403.3(q)]. Primary Industry Categories- Any industry category listed inthe Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) settlement agreement [(NRDC et al. w. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (O.O.C. 1976), modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 (O.O.C. 1979)] for which EPA has or will develop effluent guidelines; also listed in Appendix A of40 CFR Part 122. Primary Treatment-The practice of removing some portion ofthe suspended solids and organic matter in awastewater through sedimentation. Common usage ofthis term also includes preliminary treatment to remove wastewater constituents that may cause maintenance or operational problems inthe system (i.e., grit removal, screening for rags and debris, oil and grease removal, etc.). Priority Pollutants-Those pollutants considered to be of principal importance for control under the CWA based on the NRDC consent decree settlement [(NRDC et al. V.Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 (D.D.C. 1979)]; a list ofthese pollutants is provided as Appendix Ato 40 CFR Part 423.

8Ef% NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual -G-9Glossary of Terms

. Process Wastewater-Any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with, or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product.

. Production-Based Standard-A discharge standard expressed interms of pollutant mass allowed in adischarge per unit of product manufactured.

l Proposed Permit-A State NPDES permit prepared after the close ofthe public comment period (and when applicable, any public hearing and administrative appeals) which issent to EPA for review before final issuance by the State.

. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POW)-A treatment works, as defined by Section 212 ofthe CWA, that isowned by the State or municipality. This definition includes any devices and systems used inthe storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. Italso includes sewers, pipes, and other conveyances only ifthey convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant [40 CFR $403.31.

. Sanitary Sewer-A pipe or conduit (sewer) intended to carry wastewater or water-borne wastes from homes, businesses, and industries to the POTW.

. Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOj-Untreated or partially treated sewage overflows from a sanitary sewer collection system.

l Secondary Industry Category-Any industry category which is not a primary industry category.

. Secondary Treatment-Technology-based requirements for direct discharging municipal sewage treatment facilities. Standard is based on a combination of physical and biological processes typical for the treatment of pollutants in municipal sewage. Standards are expressed as a minimum level of effluent quality interms of: BOD,, suspended solids (SS), and pH (except as provided for special considerations and treatment equivalent to secondary treatment).

l Self-Monitoring-Sampling and analyses performed by afacility to determine compliance with a permit or other regulatory requirements.

l Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC)-A plan prepared by afacility to minimize the likelihood of aspill and to expedite control and cleanup activities should a spill occur.

G-10 -8HY4 NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual

# Glossary ofTennrb

.

. Significant Industrial User (SIU)-An indirect discharger that isthe focus of control efforts under the national pretreatment program; includes all indirect dischargers subject to national categorical pretreatment standards, and all other indirect dischargers that contribute 25,000 gpd or more of process wastewater, or which make upfive percent or more ofthe hydraulic or organic loading to the municipal treatment plant, subject to certain exceptions [40 CFR $403.3(t)]. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code-A code number system used to identify various types of industries. The code numbers are published by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. A particular industry may have more than one SIC code ifitconducts several types of commercial or manufacturing activities onsite. Statement of Basis-A document prepared for every draft NPDES permit for which afact sheet is not required. A statement of basis briefly describes how permit conditions were derived and the reasons the conditions are necessary for the permit [40 CFR $124.71. STORET-EPA’s computerized STOrage and RETrieval water quality data base that includes physical, chemical, and biological data measured in waterbodies throughout the United States. Storm Water-Storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage [40 CFR §122.26(b)(13)]. Technology-Based Effluent Limit-A permit limit for a pollutant that is based on the capability of atreatment method to reduce the pollutant to a certain concentration. Tiered Permit Limits-Permit limits that only apply to the discharge when a certain threshold (e.g., production level), specific circumstance (e.g., batch discharge), or timeframe (e.g., after 6 months) triggers their use. Tiered Testing-Any of a series oftests that are conducted as a result of a previous test’s findings. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)-The amount of pollutant, or property of a pollutant, from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, that may be discharged to awater quality-limited receiving water. Any pollutant loading above the TMDL results inviolation of applicable water quality standards. Total Organic Carbon (TOC)-Measures the amount of organic carbon in water.
8ER4 NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual -G-l 1Glossary ofTerms
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)-A measure ofthe filterable solids present in asample, as determined by the method specified in40 CFR Part 136. Toxic Pollutant-Pollutants or combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information available to the Administrator of EPA, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions, (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms ortheir offspring. Toxic pollutants also include those pollutants listed by the Administrator under CWA Section 307(a)(l) or any pollutant listed under Section 405(d) which relates to sludge management. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)-A site-specific study conducted in astepwise process designed to identify the causative agent(s) of effluent toxicity, isolate the sources oftoxicity, evaluate the effectiveness oftoxicity control options, and then confirm the reduction in effluent toxicity. Toxicity Test-A procedure to determine the toxicity of achemical or an effluent using living organisms. Atoxicity test measures the degree of effect on exposed test organisms of aspecific chemical or effluent. Treatability Manual-Five-set library of EPA guidance manuals that contain information related to the treatability of many pollutants. This manual can be used indeveloping NPDES permit limitations for facilities and/or pollutants which, atthe time of permit issuance, are not subject to industry-specific effluent guidelines. The five volumes that comprise this series include: Vol. I-Treatability Data (EPA-600/8-80-042a); Vol. /I - industrial Descriptions (EPA-600/8-80-042b); Vol. 111 - Technologies (EPA-600/8-80-042~); Vol. IV -Cost Estimating (EPA-600/8-80-042d); Vol. V-Summary (EPA-600/8-80-042e). TSD-Abbreviation for the Technical Support Document Water Qualitybased Toxics Control (EPA-505/2-90-OOl), EPA Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits, 1991. Itcontains procedures for water qualitybased limitation development. TWTDS-Abbreviation for Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage. Includes all POlWs and other facilities that treat domestic wastewater, and facilities that do not treat domestic wastewater, but that treat or dispose of sewage sludge. Upset-An exceptional incident inwhich there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with the permit limit because offactors beyond
G-12 -iiElY4 NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual

### Glossary ofTmrr

the reasonable control ofthe permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.

l Variance-Any mechanism or provision under Sections 301 or 316 ofthe CWA or under 40 CFR Part 125, or inthe applicable “effluent limitations guidelines” which allows modification to or waiver ofthe generally applicable effluent limitations requirements or time deadlines ofthe CWA. This includes provisions which allow the establishment of alternative limitations based on fundamentally different factors.

. Wastesload Allocation (WLA)-The proportion of a receiving water’s total maximum daily load that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution.

. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL)-A value determined by selecting the most stringent ofthe effluent limits calculated using all applicable water quality criteria (e.g., aquatic life, human health, and wildlife) for a specific point source to aspecific receiving water for a given pollutant.

. Water Quality Criteria -Comprised of numeric and narrative criteria. Numeric criteria are scientifically derived ambient concentrations developed by EPA or States for various pollutants ofconcern to protect human health and aquatic life. Narrative criteria are statements that describe the desired water quality goal.

. Water Quality Standard (WQS)-A law or regulation that consists ofthe beneficial use or uses of awaterbody, the numeric and narrative water quality criteria that are necessary to protect the use or uses ofthat particular waterbody, and an antidegradation statement.

. Waters of the United States-All waters that are currently used, were used inthe past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters subject tothe ebb and flow ofthe tide. Waters ofthe United States include but are not limited to all interstate waters and intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, play lakes, or natural ponds. [See 40 CFR 5122.2 for the complete definition.]

. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)-The total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with atoxicity test.

&EM NPDES Permit Writer Training Manual -G-13

# Chapter 1

Introduction

The purpose ofthis manual isto provide the basic regulatory framework and technical considerations that support the development ofwastewater discharge permits as required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. It isdesigned for new permit writers, but may also serve as a reference for experienced permit writers. In addition, the manual will serve as a useful source of information for anyone interested in learning about the legal process and technical aspects ofdeveloping NPDES permits. This manual updates the Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers. 1
Itis recognized that each United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional office or approved State will have NPDES permitting procedures adapted to address local situations. Therefore, itisthe objective ofthis manual to explain the minimum national NPDES Program elements common to any State or Regional office that issues NPDES permits, The specific objectives and functions ofthis training manual are to:

• Provide an overview ofthe scope and regulatory framework ofthe NPDES Program

1USEPA (1993). Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers. EPA/B-93-003. Office of Wastewater Management. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 1Chapter 1 Introduction

• Describe the components of a permit and provide an overview of the permitting process • Describe the different types of effluent limits and the legal and technical considerations involved in limit development • Describe other permit conditions including:

- special conditions

- standard conditions

- monitoring and reporting requirements • Describe other permitting considerations including:

- variances

- anti-backsliding

- other applicable statutes (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act) • Explain the administrative process for issuing, modifying, revoking and terminating NPDES permits.
This manual is not intended to be a stand-alone reference document. Instead, it is intended to establish the framework for NPDES permit development and should be supplemented, where necessary, by additional EPA and State guidance applicable to specific types of dischargers and circumstances. To this end, the NPDES Permit Writers Manual identifies and references other guidance documents throughout the text and provides information on how these documents can be obtained. Appendix D of this manual provides the reader with detailed information on how to obtain comprehensive lists of available EPA publications and how these documents can be ordered.

1.1 History and Evolution of the NPDES Program The NPDES Program has evolved from numerous legislative initiatives dating back to the mid-1960s. In 1965, Congress enacted legislation requiring States to develop water quality standards for all interstate waters by 1967. However, despite increasing public concern and increased Federal spending, only about 50 percent of the States had established water quality standards by 1971. Enforcement of the Federal legislation was minimal because the burden of proof lay with the regulatory agencies in demonstrating that a water quality problem had implications for human health or violated water quality standards. Specifically, the agencies had to demonstrate a direct link between a discharger and a water quality problem in order to enforce against a discharger. The lack of success in developing adequate water
2- EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manualbtr0duction Chapter 1

quality standards programs, combined with ineffective enforcement of Federal water pollution legislation prompted the Federal government to advance the 1970 Refuse Act Permit Program (RAPP), under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as avehicle to control water pollution. RAPP,required any facility that discharged wastes into public waterways to obtain a Federal permit specifying abatement requirements from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Administrator of EPA endorsed the joint program with the Corps of Engineers, and on December 23, 1970, the permit program was mandated through Presidential Order. EPA and the Corps of Engineers rapidly began to prepare the administrative and technical basis for the permit program. However, in December 1971, RAPP was struck down by a decision ofthe Federal District Court in Ohio (Kalur v.Resofl, which held that the issuance of a permit for an individual facility could require the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The concept of a permit program survived, however, and, in November 1972, Congress passed a comprehensive recodification and revision of Federal water pollution control law, known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972. These amendments included the NPDES permit program as the centerpiece ofthe efforts for national water pollution control.
The enactment ofthe 1972 amendments marked adistinct change inthe philosophy ofwater pollution control inthe United States. The amendments maintained the water quality-based controls, but added an equal emphasis on a technology-based, or end-of-pipe, control strategy. The 1972 Act established a series of goals or policies in Section 101 that illustrated Congressional intent. Perhaps the most notable was the goal that the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985. This goal was not realized, but remains a principle for establishing permit requirements. The Act had an interim goal to achieve “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation inand on the water” by July 1, 1983. This is more commonly known as the “fishable, swimmable” goal. The Act also contained four important principles:

l The discharge of pollutants to navigable waters is not a right.

l A discharge permit is required to use public resources for waste disposal and limits the amount of pollutants that may be discharged.
88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -3. Wastewater must be treated with the best treatment technology economically achievable-regardless ofthe condition ofthe receiving water.

. Effluent limits must be based on treatment technology performance, but more stringent limits may be imposed ifthe technology-based limits do not prevent violations ofwater quality standards inthe receiving water.
More specifically, Title IV ofthe Act created a system for permitting wastewater discharges (Section 402), known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), with the objective to implement the goals and objectives ofthe Act. An outline ofthe Titles contained inthe Act isprovided as Exhibit 1-l.



## EXHIBIT l-l Organization ofthe Clean Water Act Title I - Research andRelated Programs Title II - Grants for Construction ofTreatment Works Title III - Standards and Enforcement

l Section 301 Effluent Limitations

l Section 302Water Quality-Related Effluent Limitations

l Section 303Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans

l Section 304 Information andGuidelines [Effluent]

l Section 305Water Quality Inventory

l Section 307Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards. Title IV - Permits and Licenses

l Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

l Section 405 Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Title V - General Provisions

l Section 502 Definitions

l Section 510StateAuthority

l Section 518Indian Tribes. Title VI - StateWater Pollution Control Revolving Funds

4-8EfYJ NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 1

The first round of NPDES permits issued between 1972 and 1976 provided for control of a number oftraditionally regulated pollutants, but focused on 5-&y biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, oil and grease, and some metals, by requiring the use ofthe Best Practicable Control Technology currently available (BPT). The Act established aJuly 1, 1977, deadline for allfacilities to be incompliance with BPT. Additionally, the Act established the compliance deadline for installing Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) as July 1, 1983. Most ofthe major permits issued to industrial facilities inthe first round of NPDES permitting cdntained effluent limitations based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) because regulations prescribing nationally uniform, technology-based effluent limitations were generally unavailable. The second round of permitting in the late 1970s and early 1980s began to emphasize the control oftoxics, but, due to a lack of information on treatability, failed to complete the task.
EPA’s failure to develop adequate controls for toxic discharges under the 1972 Act prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to sue EPA. [NRDC v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976)j. The suit was settled through acourt supervised “consent decree” in 1976. The consent decree identified (1) the “priority” pollutants to be controlled; (2) the “primary industries” for technology-based control; and (3) the methods for regulating toxic discharges through the authorities ofthe 1972 Act. The provisions ofthe consent decree were incorporated into the framework ofthe 1977 amendments ofthe Act, and resulted inthe Act’s refocus toward toxics control.
The 1977 amendments to the legislation, known formally as the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, shifted emphasis from controlling conventional pollutants to controlling toxic discharges. This era oftoxic pollutant control is referred to as the second round of permitting. The concept of BAT controls was clarified and expanded to include toxic pollutants. Hence, the compliance deadline for BAT was extended to July 1, 1984. The conventional pollutants (BOD,, TSS, pH, fecal coliform, and oil and grease) controlled by BPT inthe first round of permitting were now subject to a new level of control, termed Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT). The compliance deadline for meeting BCT was also July 1, 1984.
On February 4, 1987, Congress amended the CWA with the Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987. The amendments outlined a strategy to accomplish the goal of

&BY4 NPDES Permft Writers’ Manual -5Chepter 1 1lltlQdUGtl~

meeting water quality standards set bythe States. The WQA required all States to identify waters that were not expected to meet water quality standards after technology-based controls on point sources have been imposed. The State must then prepare an individual control strategy to reduce toxics from point and nonpoint sources in order to meet the water quality standards. Among other measures, these plans were expected to address control of pollutants beyond technology-based levels.
The WQA once again extended the time to meet BAT and BCT effluent limitations. The new compliance deadline was no later than March 31, 1989. The WQA also established new schedules for industrial and municipal storm water discharges to be regulated by NPDES permits. Industrial storm water discharges must meet the equivalent of BCT/BAT effluent quality. Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) required controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Additionally, the WQA required EPA to identify toxics insewage sludge and establish numerical limits to control these pollutants. The WQA also established a statutory anti-backsliding requirement that would not allow an existing permit to be modified or reissued with less stringent effluent limitations, standards, or conditions than those already imposed. There were afew exceptions for technology-based limits, but in no case could the limits be less stringent than existing effluent guidelines (unless avariance has been granted) or violate water quality standards.

6-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Chapter 2

Regulatory Framework and ScopeoftheNPDES Program

This chapter provides a discussion of the regulatory framework of the NPDES Program, identifies the types of activities regulated under the NPDES Program, and discusses the program areas that address the various types of regulated activities.

2.1 Regulatory Framework of the NPDES Program Chapter 1 discussed how Congress, in Section 402 of the CWA, required EPA to develop and implement the NPDES permit program. While Congress’ intent was established in the CWA, EPA had to develop specific regulations to carry out the congressional mandate. The primary regulations developed by EPA to implement and administer the NPDES Program are found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122.
The CFR is a set of documents listing all regulations issued by every United States government agency. The CFR is published by the National Archives and Records Service of the General Services Administration. The CFR is updated annually based on the regulations published daily in the Federal Register (FR).

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -7Chapter 2 Regulatory Framework and Scope of the NPDES Program
The FR is the vehicle by which EPA and other branches of the Federal government provide notice of, propose, and promulgate regulations. Although all of the regulations can be found in the CFR, the background and implementation information related to these regulations can be found in the preamble to the regulations contained in the FR. This information is important to the permit writer because it explains the regulatory basis upon which permitting decisions are made.
An outline of the Federal NPDES regulations (40 CFR Part 122) is provided in Exhibit 2-1. Other parts of 40 CFR that are related to the NPDES Program include:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 CFR Part 123 (State requirements) 40 CFR Part 124 (procedures for decision making) 40 CFR Part 125 (technology-based standards) 40 CFR Part 129 (toxic pollutant standards) 40 CFR Part 130 (water quality management plans) 40 CFR Part 131 (water quality-based standards) 40 CFR Part 133 (sewage secondary treatment regulations) 40 CFR Part 135 (citizen suits) 40 CFR Part 136 (analytical procedures) 40 CFR Part 257 (State sludge disposal regulations) 40 CFR Part 401 (general effluent guidelines provisions) 40 CFR Part 403 (general pretreatment regulations) 40 CFR Parts 405-471 (effluent limitations guidelines) 40 CFR Part 501 (State sludge permitting requirements) 40 CFR Part 503 (sewage sludge disposal standards).
An index to the NPDES regulations is provided in Appendix A. This index groups the regulatory requirements by subject area to provide the permit writer easier access to specific provisions.

2.2 Scope of the NPDES Program Under the NPDES Program, all facilities which discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States are required to obtain a NPDES permit. Understanding how each of the key terms (“pollutant,” *‘point source,” and “waters of

8- EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualRegulatory Framework and Scope ot the NPDES Program Chapter 2 

## EXHIBIT 2-l Federal NPDES Regulations (40CFR Part 122) Subpart A - Definitions and General Program Requirements 122.1 PurposeandScopeof NPDES Program 122.2 Definitions 122.3 Exclusions f22.4 Prohibitions 122.5 Effect of aPermit 122.6 Continuation of Expired Permits 122.7 Confidentiality of Information Subpart B- Permit Application .and Special NPDES Program Requirements 122.21 .4pplications 122.22 Signatures Rcquircments for Applications 122.23 Animal Feeding Operations 122.24 Aquatic Animal Production 122.25 Aquaculture 122.26 Storm Water Discharges 122.27 Silviculture 122.28 General Permits 122.29 New Sourcesand New Discharges Subpart C - Permit Conditions 122.41 Standard Conditions 122.42 Standard Conditions Applicable toSpecified Categories 122.43 Permit Conditions 122.44 Permit Limitations (a) Technology Basis (b) Other Basis (not WQ) (c) Reopeners id) Water Quality Basis (c) Priority Pollutants If) Notification Levels t,g) 24Hour Reporting fh) Duration of Permits (i) Monitoring (j) Pretreatment Program (k) BestManagement Practices (1) Anti-Backsliding (m) Private Treatment Works (n) Grants (0) Sludge (p) CoastGuard (q) Navigation
122.45 Calculating Limitations (a) Discharge Points (b) Production Basis (c) Metals (d) Continuous Discharges ie) Non-continuous Discharges (f) Mass BasedLimits (g) Intake Water Pollutants (h) Internal WasteStreams (i) Discharge into Wells
122.46 Duration of Permits 122.47 Schedules of Compliance 122.48 Reporting 122.49 Considcratiun of Other Federal Laws 122.50 Disposal 10Other Points Subpart D -Transfer, Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, and Termination of Permit 122.61 Transfer of Permits 122.62 Modification or Revocation andReissuanceof Permits 122.63 Minor Modifications of Permits 122.64 Termination of Permits BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -9Chapter 2 Regulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Progna~l

the United States”) have been defined and interpreted by the regulations isthe key to defining the scope ofthe NPDES Program. 

### Pollutant The term “pollutant” isdefined very broadly by the NPDES regulations and includes any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water (see glossary). For regulatory purposes, pollutants have been grouped into three general categories under the NPDES Program: conventional, toxic, and nonconventional. By definition, there are five conventional pollutants: 5day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease. Toxic or “priority” pollutants are those defined in Section 307(a)(l) ofthe CWA (and listed in40 CFR 5401.15) and include metals and manmade organic compounds. Nonconventional pollutants are those which do not fall under either of the above categories and include such parameters as ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and whole effluent toxicity (WET). 

### Point Source Pollutants can enter waters ofthe United States from avariety of pathways including agricultural, domestic and industrial sources (see Exhibit 2-2). For regulatory purposes these sources are generally categorized as either “point sources” or “non-point sources.” Typical point source discharges include discharges from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial facilities, and discharges associated with urban runoff. While provisions ofthe NPDES Program do address certain specific types of agricultural activities (i.e., concentrated animal feeding operations), the majority of agricultural facilities are defined as non-point sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation.
Pollutant contributions to waters ofthe United States may come from both “direct” and “indirect” sources. “Direct” sources discharge wastewater directly into the receiving waterbody, whereas “indirect” sources discharge wastewater to a POTW, which inturn discharges into the receiving waterbody. Under the national program, NPDES permits are issued onJ to direct point source discharges. Industrial and commercial indirect dischargers are controlled by the national pretreatment program (see Section 8.3.1).

10-&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualRegulatory Framework and Scqm ofthe NPDES Program Chapter 2 

## EXHIBIT 2-2 Sourcesof Discharge toWaters ofthe United States

I- __ -.. 1

As indicated above, the primary focus ofthe NPDES permitting program is municipal and non-municipal (industrial) direct dischargers. Within these major categories of dischargers, however, there are a number of more specific types of discharges that are regulated under the NPDES Program. Exhibit 2-3 provides an overview ofthe scope ofthe NPDES Program and identifies the program areas that control various categories of wastewater discharges. Municipalities (e.g., POTWs receive primarily domestic sewage from residential and commercial customers. Larger POTWs will also typically receive and treat wastewater from industrial facilities (indirect dischargers) connected to the POTW sewerage system. The types of pollutants treated by a POTW, therefore, will always include conventional pollutants (BOD,, TSS, pH, oil and grease, fecal coliform), and will include nonconventional and toxic pollutants depending on the unique characteristics ofthe commercial and industrial sources discharging to the POTW. The treatment typically provided by POTWs includes physical separation and settling (e.g., screening, grit removal, primary settling), biological treatment (e.g., trickling filters, activated sludge), and disinfection (e.g., chlorination, UV, ozone). These processes produce the treated effluent and a biosolids (sludge) residual. An additional
&EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 11Chapter 2 Regulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Program 

## EXHIBIT 2-3 NPDES Program Areas andApplicable Regulations


# source I AtZfh@? 1

Municipal Effluent Discharge NPDES Point Source Control Program 40 CFR 122 40 CFR 125 40 CFR 133 Indirect Industrial/ Pretreatment 40 CFR 122 Commercial Discharges Program 40 CFR 403 40 CFR 405-499 

### Municipal Municipal Sludge Use

and Disposal Municipal Sewage Sludge Program 40 CFR 122 40 CFR 257 40 CFR 501 40 CFR 503 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Discharges CSO Control Program 40 CFR 122 40 CFR 125
Storm Water Discharges (Municipal) Storm Water Program 40 CFR 122

40 CFR 125 ProcessWastewater Discharges NPDES Point Source

Control Program 40 CFR 122 40 CFR 125 40 CFR 405-499 

### Industrial Non-process Wastewater NPDES Point Source 40 CFR 122

Discharges Control Program 40 CFR 125 Storm Water Discharges Storm Water Program 40 CFR 122 (Industrial) 40 CFR 125

concern to some older POTWs are “combined sewer” systems (i.e., sewerage systems that are designed to collect both sanitary sewage and storm water). Exhibit 2-3 illustrates how the NPDES Program isstructured to control all ofthe various types of pollutant sources and wastestreams that contribute to municipal point sources. Non-municipal sources, which include industrial and commercial facilities, are unique with respect tothe products and processes present at the facility. Unlike municipal sources, the types of raw materials, production processes, treatment technologies utilized, and pollutants discharged at industrial facilities vary widely and are dependent on the type of industry and specific facility characteristics. The

12-&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 2

operations, however, are generally carried out within a more clearly defined plant area; thus, collection system considerations are generally much less complex than for POTWs. In addition, residuals (sludge) generated by industrial facilities are not currently regulated by the NPDES Program. Industrial facilities may have discharges of storm water that may be contaminated through contact with manufacturing activities, or raw material and product storage. Industrial facilities may also have non-process wastewater discharges such as non-contact cooling water. As illustrated in Exhibit 2-3, the NPDES Program addresses each ofthese potential wastewater sources for industrial facilities. 

### Waters ofthe United States The term “waters ofthe United States,” has been defined by EPA to include:

. Navigable waters

. Tributaries of navigable waters

. Interstate waters
l Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams:

- Used by interstate travelers for recreation and other purposes; or
- Which are the source offish or shellfish sold in interstate commerce; or
- Which are utilized for industrial purposes by industries engaged in interstate commerce.
The intent ofthis definition isto cover all possible waters within Federal jurisdiction under the framework ofthe Constitution (i.e., Federal versus State authorities). The definition has been interpreted to include virtually all surface waters inthe United States, including wetlands and ephemeral streams. As a general matter, groundwater is not considered awaters ofthe United States: Therefore discharges to groundwater are not subject to NPDES requirements. If,on the other hand, there isadischarge to groundwater that results ina“hydrological connection” to a nearby surface water, the Director may require the discharger to apply for an NPDES permit. [Note: Because States maintain jurisdiction over groundwater resources, they may choose to require NPDES permits for discharges to groundwater.]

BERA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 13Chapter 2 Regulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Program 

## 2.3 NPDES Program Areas As indicated in Exhibit 2-3, the national NPDES Program includes provisions that address several different types of discharges from municipal and industrial sources. This section provides a brief description of how the NPDES Program addresses each ofthese program areas. 

### 2.3.1 NPDES Program Areas Applicable to Municipal Sources The NPDES permitting program focuses on the development of effluent limits and conditions for the discharge oftreated effluent. The NPDES Program, however, also incorporates other control measures to address certain types and categories of discharges that may be present at some municipal facilities. A description ofthese control measures, and adiscussion of how they are incorporated into the permitting process is provided below. 

### National Pretreatment Program The national pretreatment program regulates the discharges ofwastewater from non-domestic (i.e., industrial and commercial) facilities that discharge to POTWs (i.e., “indirect” discharges). The pretreatment program requires industrial and commercial indirect dischargers to “pretreat” their wastes, as necessary, prior to discharge to POTWs, to prevent interference or upset to the operation ofthe POTW. The Federal program also requires many indirect dischargers to meet technology-based requirements similar to those for direct dischargers. The pretreatment program is generally implemented directly by the POTW receiving indirect discharges, under authority granted through the NPDES permit. The Federal regulations specifying which POTWs must have pretreatment programs, and the authorities and procedures that must be developed by the POTW prior to program approval are found in40 CFR Part 403. The implementation of a local pretreatment program istypically included as a special condition in NPDES permits issued to POTWs. The incorporation of pretreatment special conditions is discussed inChapter 8. 

### Municipal SewageSludge Program Section 405 ofthe CWA requires that all NPDES permits issued to POTWs and other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS) contain conditions

14-GEM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMgulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPbES Program Chapter 2

implementing 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Thus, POTWs and other TWTDS must submit permit applications for their sludge use or disposal practices. TWTDS include sewage sludge incinerators, sewage sludge surface disposal sites, and facilities that do not discharge to waters of the United States (sludge-only facilities such as sludge composting facilities that treat sewage sludge).
The permitting regulations can be found at40 CFR Part 122 for the Federal program. Regulations for State program approval are found at40 CFR Parts 123 or 501 (depending on whether the State wishes to administer the sewage sludge program under its NPDES Program or under another program, e.g., asolid waste program). The technical regulations governing sewage sludge use and disposal are contained in40 CFR Part 503. Where applicable, sludge management requirements are included as a special condition in permits issued to POTWs. The incorporation of special conditions that address sludge requirements isdiscussed in Chapter 8. 

### Combined Sewer Overflows Combined sewer systems (CSS) are wastewater collection systems designed to carry sanitary wastewaters (commercial and industrial wastewaters) and storm water through a single conduit to a POTW. As of 1995, CSSs serve about 43 million people in approximately 1,100 communities nationwide. During dry weather, CSSs collect and convey domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater to a POTW; however, during periods of rainfall or snowmelt, these systems can become overloaded. When this occurs, the CSS overflows at designed relief points, discharging acombination of untreated sanitary wastewaters and storm water directly to a surface water body. These overflows, called combined sewer overflows (CSOs), can be a major source of water pollution incommunities served by CSSs. CSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids (SS), pathogenic microorganisms, toxic pollutants, floatables, nutrients, and other pollutants, causing exceedances ofwater quality standards.
To address CSOs, EPA issued the National CSO Control Strategy on August 10, 1989 (54 FR 37370). While the 1989 Strategy resulted in some progress in controlling CSOs, significant public health risks and water quality impacts remained. To expedite compliance with the CWA and to elaborate on the 1989 Strategy, EPA, in collaboration with other CSO stakeholders (communities with CSSs, State water
&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 15Chapter 2 Regulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Program

quality authorities, and environmental groups), developed and published the CSO Control Policy on April 19, 1994 (59 FR 18688). The Policy establishes a uniform, nationally consistent approach to developing and issuing NPDES permits that address CSOs. With respect to NPDES permittees, State water quality standards authorities, and NPDES permitting and enforcement authorities, the CSO Policy states the following:

. Permittees should immediately implement the nine minimum controls (NMCs), which are technology-based actions or measures designed to reduce CSOs and their effects on receiving water quality, as soon as practicable, but no later than January 1, 1997.

. Permittees should give priority to environmentally sensitive areas.

l Permittees should develop long-term control plans (LTCPs) for controlling CSOs. A permittee may use one oftwo approaches: (1) demonstrate that its plan is adequate to meet the water quality-based requirements ofthe CWA (“demonstration approach”), or (2) implement a minimum lavel of treatment (e.g., primary clarification of at least 85% ofthe collected combined sewage flows) that is presumed to meet the water quality-based requirements ofthe CWA, unless data indicate otherwise (“presumptive approach”).

. Water quality standards authorities should review and revise, as appropriate, State water quality standards during the CSO long-term planning process.

. NPDES permitting authorities should consider the financial capability of permittees when reviewing CSO control plans.
The CSO Policy recommends that NPDES permitting authorities utilize a phased approach in addressing CSOs. Phase Ipermits should require the permittee to implement the NMC within two years of notice from the NPDES permitting authority and to develop a LTCP. Phase IIpermits should require continued implementation of the NMC and implementation of a LTCP.
Prior to issuing a permit that requires conditions that address CSOs, permit writers should consult the CSO Control Policy and associated guidance materials. The incorporation of permit conditions that address CSOs is provided in Chapter 8.

16-&ERA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualRegulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Program Chapter 2



### Storm Water Program (Municipal) EPA has determined that storm water runoff from major metropolitan areas isa significant source of pollutants discharged to waters ofthe United States. While rainfall and snow are natural events, the nature of runoff and its impact on receiving waters ishighly dependent on human activities and use ofthe land. Runoff from lands modified by human activities (i.e., metropolitan areas) can affect surface water resources intwo ways: (1) natural flow patterns can be modified; and (2) pollution concentrations and loadings can be elevated.
To address these discharges, the 1987 amendments to the CWA added a provision [Section 402(p)] that directed EPA to establish phased NPDES requirements for storm water discharges. Section 402(p)(2) ofthe Act identifies discharges covered under Phase Iofthe Storm Water Program and includes discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 100,000 or more. Section 402(p)(3) identifies the standards for MS4 permits. These standards mark the significant difference in permits that address storm water discharges from MS4s versus permits that address other more traditional sources (i.e., POTWs and nonmunicipal sources). In general, Congress provided that permits for discharges from MS4s:

. May be issued on a system- orjurisdiction wide basis;

l Shall effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges into the MS4; and

l Shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to maximum extent practicable (MEP).
In response, EPA published regulations addressing storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990). The regulations define a MS4 as any conveyance or system of conveyances that is owned or operated by a State or local government entity designed for collecting and conveying storm water. Under Phase Iofthe Storm Water Program, only those MS4s which served a population of 100,000 or more were required to apply for a NPDES permit. Unlike permits that are developed and issued to individual POTWs (also referred to as “municipals”), permits that address storm water discharges from MS4s may be issued on ajurisdiction-wide basis to the operator ofthe storm water collection

3H34 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 17Chapter 2 Regulatory Framework and Scope ofthe NPDES Program

system (e.g., acounty or city public works department). Chapter 8 discusses considerations for developing NPDES permits for storm water discharges from MS4s. 

### 2.3.2 NPDES Program Areas Applicable to Industrial Sources In addition to the development of effluent limits and conditions for discharges of process and non-process wastewater from direct dischargers, the NPDES Program also includes provisions for control of storm water discharges from industrial sources. A description ofthis program area and adiscussion of how itis incorporated into the permitting process isprovided below. 

### Storm Water Program (Industrial) All storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge through municipal separate storm sewer systems or that discharge directly into the waters ofthe United States are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage, including those which discharge through MS4s located in municipalities with a population of less than 100,000. Discharges of storm water to asanitary sewer system or to a POTW are excluded. As with the Municipal Storm Water Program discussed in Section 2.3.1 above, EPA published the initial permit application requirements for certain categories of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 48065).
The regulations define storm water discharges associated with industrial activity as discharges from any conveyance used for collecting and conveying storm water directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant. The NPDES permitting regulations at40 CFR $122.26 were promulgated on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 48065) to identify the following 11 industrial categories required to apply for NPDES permits for storm water discharges:

. Facilities subject to storm water effluent limitations guidelines (ELG), new source performance standards (NSPS), or toxic pollutant effluent standards under 40 CFR Subchapter N

. Certain heavy manufacturing facilities (lumber, paper, chemicals, petroleum refining, leather tanning, stone, clay, glass, concrete, ship construction)

l Active and inactive mining operations and oil and gas operations with contaminated storm water

18-8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualRegulatory Framework and Scope of the NPDES Program Chapter 2

. Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle Cfacilities

. Landfills, open dumps, and RCRA Subtitle Dfacilities

. Recycling facilities, including metal scrapyards, battery reclaimers, salvage yards, and automotive junkyards

. Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling sites

. Transportation facilities that have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning operations, or airport de-icing operations

. Major POTW sludge handling facilities, including onsite application of sewage sludge

l Construction activities that disturb five acres or more

. Light industrial manufacturing facilities. Operators of industrial facilities that are federally, state or municipally owned or operated that meet the description ofthe facilities listed in40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(1)- (xi) must also submit applications (note: the Transportation Act of 1991 provides exceptions for certain municipally owned or operated facilities). EPA published final rules regarding the NPDES Storm Water Regulations on both April 1, 1992 (57 FR 11394) and December 18, 1992 (57 FR 60444). The rule promulgated on April 2, 1992 was, in part, to codify provisions ofthe Transportation Act of 1991. The December 18, 1992 rule was in response to the mandate ofthe Ninth Circuit United States Court ofAppeals in NRDC v. EPA (June 4, 1992). Each ofthese final rules are summarized below:

l Transportation Act of 1992-The Transportation Act of 1991 provides an exemption from Phase Istorm water permitting requirements for certain industrial activities owned or operated by municipalities with a population of less than 100,000 (note: population threshold not tied to a service population for a MS4). Such municipalities must submit storm water discharge permit applications only for airports, powerplants, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that they own or operate.

. Ninth Circuit Court Decision-The Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals’ opinion in NRDC v. EPA (June 4, 1992) invalidated and remanded for further proceedings two regulatory exemptions from the definition of “storm water discharges associated with industrial activity”: 1. The exemption for construction sites disturbing less than five acres of land (category x), and 2. The exemption of certain “light” manufacturing facilities without exposure of materials and activities to storm water (category xi).

8fR4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 19Chapter 2
In response to these two remands, EPA intends to conduct further rulemaking proceedings on construction activities under five acres and light industry without exposure. As ordered by the Court, EPA will not require permit applications for construction sites disturbing less than five acres of land and category xifacilities without exposure until this further rulemaking iscompleted. Generally, storm water discharges from industrial sources are regulated by Federal or State issued general permits (see Section 3.1 for a description of the types of NPDES permits). However, insome cases, storm water conditions may be incorporated into acomprehensive individual NPDES permit for afacility, or a storm water-specific individual NPDES permit. The incorporation of permit conditions that address storm water discharges from industrial facilities is provided in Chapter 8. For more information regarding the scope ofthe NPDES Storm Water Program, refer to EPA’s storm water regulations at40 CFR 122.26 and the Overview of the 

### Storm Water Proaram.2

‘USEPA (1996). Ovewiew of the Storm Water Program. EPA 833-R-96-008. Office of Water. 20-88R9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Chapter 3

Overview oftheNPDES Permitting Process

This chapter presents an overview ofthe different types of NPDES permits, permit components, the permitting development and issuance process, and the roles and responsibilities ofthe Federal and State governments. The intent ofthis chapter isto give the permit writer an introduction to the elements of a NPDES permit and to provide a brief overview ofthe process ofwriting a permit. The process is illustrated by the use offlow charts. The tasks identified within the flow charts are described in detail in subsequent chapters. 

## 3.1 Types of Permits A permit istypically a license for afacility to discharge aspecified amount of a pollutant into a receiving water under certain conditions; however, permits may also authorize facilities to process, incinerate, landfill, or beneficially use sewage sludge. The two basic types of NPDES permits that can be issued are individual and general permits.
An 

### individual permit is a permit specifically tailored for an individual facility. Upon submitting the appropriate application(s), the permitting authority develops a permit for that particular facility based on the information contained inthe permit

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -21Chapter 3 Overview of the NPDES Permitting Process

application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality). The permit is then issued to the facility for a specific time period (not to exceed 5 years) with a requirement to reapply prior to the expiration date.
A general permit is developed and issued by a permitting authority to cover multiple facilities within a specific category. General permits may offer a cost-effective option for agencies because of the large number of facilities that can be covered under a single permit. According to 40 CFR §122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having common elements, such as:

• Storm water point sources • Facilities that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations • Facilities that discharge the same types of wastes or engage in the same types of sludge use or disposal • Facilities that require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions, or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal • Facilities that require the same monitoring where tiered conditions may be used for minor differences within class (e.g., size or seasonal activity) • Facilities that are more appropriately regulated by a general permit.
General permits, however, may only be issued to dischargers within a specific geographical area such as the following:

• Designated planning area • Sewer district • City, county, or State boundary • State highway system • Standard metropolitan statistical area • Urbanized area.
The use of general permits allows the permitting authority to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more timely permit coverage. For example, a large number of facilities that have certain elements in common may be covered under a general permit without expending the time and money necessary to issue an individual permit to each of these facilities. In addition, the use of a general permit ensures consistency of permit conditions for similar facilities.

22 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualOverview ofthe NPOES Pennltting Process Chapter 3



## 3.2 Major Components ofaPermit All NPDES permits, at a minimum, consist offive general sections:

l Cover Page-Typically contains the name and location ofthe permittee, a statement authorizing the discharge, and a listing ofthe specific locations for which a discharge isauthorized.

l Effluent Limitations-The primary mechanism for controlling discharges of pollutants to receiving waters. The majority ofthe permit writer’s time is spent deriving appropriate effluent limitations based on applicable technology and water quality standards.

. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements-Used to characterize wastestreams and receiving waters, evaluate wastewater treatment efficiency, and determine compliance with permit conditions.

l Special Conditions-Conditions developed to supplement effluent limitations guidelines. Examples include best management practices (BMPs), additional monitoring activities, ambient stream surveys, toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs), etc.

l Standard Conditions-Pre-established conditions that apply to all NPDES permits and that delineate the legal, administrative, and procedural requirements ofthe NPDES permit. Although these sections compose all permits, the contents of some ofthese sections will vary depending on whether the permit isto be issued to a municipal or industrial facility, and whether the permit will be issued to an individual facility or to multiple dischargers (Le., a general permit), Exhibit 3-l shows the components of a permit and highlights some ofthe distinctions between the contents of NPDES permits for industrial and municipal permits. 

## 3.3 Overview ofthe Development/Issuance Processfor NPDES Individual Permits While the limits and conditions in an individual NPDES permit are unique to the permittee, the process used to develop the limits and conditions, and issue the permit, generally follows acommon set of steps. Exhibit 3-2 illustrates the major steps involved in developing and issuing an individuai NPDES permit. Exhibit 3-2 also serves as an index for the subsequent chapters ofthis manual by identifying the chapters where more detailed information for each step ispresented.

BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -23Chapter 3 OvervIew ofthe NPDES Pemdtting Process 

## EXHIBIT 3-1 NPDESPermit Components ComponentsofAU NPDESPermits
coverPage Technology-Based:
l Effluent Guidelines
l Best Professional Judgment (BP&. EfIIuent 

### Limitations: Technology Based:
l Secondary Treatment


### - Technology-Based l Equivalent to


### - Water Quality-Based Secondary Treatment. 

### Monitoring 

## Luid Reporting 

## Requirement6
Other Requirements:
l Best Management Practices (BMP). 

### Spedal Conditions: Other Requirements:
l Pretreatment Proaam

- Compliance Schedules l Combined Sewer


### - Storm Water Overflow
- Special Studies, l Municipal Sewage 

### Evaluation, and Other Sludge. Requirements 

## StandardConditions

The permitting process begins when an application issubmitted by the operator of afacility. After receiving the application and making a decision to proceed with the permit, the permit writer reviews the application for completeness and accuracy. When the application isdetermined to be complete, the permit writer begins to develop the draft permit and the justification for the permit conditions (referred to as the fact sheet or statement of basis) based, in part, on the application data.
The first major step inthe permit development process isthe derivation of technology-based effluent limits. Fotlowing this step, the permit writer derives effluent limits that are protective of State water quality standards (i.e., water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL)). The permit writer then compares the technology-based limits with the WQBELs and applies the more stringent limits inthe NPOES permit. The

24-8HYi NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

## OvervIew

oftheNPDESPemdtting Process Chapter3



## EXHIBIT 3-2 Major StepsInvolved inDevelopingandIssuingan

Individual NPDESPermit

Receive Appkation Chapter 4 Review Application forcompleteness

Using applrcation information and Chaptar 5 I other dala sources, develop

technology-based effluent limits I #
r Compare between water quality-based effluent limits and technology-based effluent limits foreach pollutant andchoose more stringent of the two Chapter 8 

# v

Using application information and other datasources,

develop water quaMy-based effluent limitations

Develop monitoring requirements foreach pollutant

ChapW 9

Prepare fact sheet and supporting documentation I

Ctlqmll I Complete thereview and issuance process I

## 4 4

8EFY4 NPOESPermitWriters’ Manual-25

### Chapter3 Overviewofthe NPDESPemftting Pfmm

decision-making process for deriving limits isdocumented inthe permit fact sheet. It is quite possible that a permit may have limitations that are technology-based for some parameters and water quality-based for others. For example, a permit may contain an effluent limit for TSS based on national effluent limitations guidelines (technology-based), a limit for ammonia based on prevention of aquatic toxicity (water quality-based), and a BOD, limit based for part ofthe year on effluent limitations guidelines (technology-based) and for the remainder ofthe year on water quality considerations. Following the development of effluent limits, the permit writer develops appropriate monitoring and reporting conditions, facility-specific special conditions, and includes standard conditions that are the same for atl permits.
The next step isto provide an opportunity for public participation inthe permit process. A public notice is issued announcing the permit and interested parties may submit comments regarding the draft permit. Based on the comments, the permitting authority then finalizes the permit, with careful attention to documenting the process and decisions for the administrative record, and issues the final permit to the facility. 

## 3.4 Overview ofthe Development/Issuance Processfor NPDES General Permits The process for developing and issuing general NPDES permits issimilar to the process for individual permits, however, there are certain differences. Inthe general permit development/issuance process, the permitting authority first identifies the need for a general permit, and collects data that demonstrate that agroup or category of dischargers have similarities that warrant a general permit. Indeciding whether to develop a general permit, permitting authorities should consider the following:

l Are there a large number offacilities to be covered?

. Do the facilities have similar production processes or activities?

. Do the facilities generate similar pollutants?

. Do only a small percentage ofthe facilities have the potential for water quality standards violations?

26-8B# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Overvlew ofthe NPDESPermitting Process Chapter3 The remaining steps ofthe permit process are the same as the individual permits. A draft permit and fact sheet are developed, a public notice is issued and public comments are addressed, the issues are documented for the administrative record, and the final permit is issued. After the general permit has been issued, facilities that wish to be covered under the general permit then generally submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the permitting authority. The permitting authority may then either request additional information describing the facility, notify the facility that itis covered by the general permit, or require the facility to apply for an individual permit. 

## 3.5 Roles and Responsibilities ofthe Federal and State Authorities EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly implement the NPDES Program. EPA, however, may authorize States, Territories, or Tribes to implement all or parts of the national program. States, Territories, or Tribes applying for authorization may seek the authority to implement the base program (i.e., issue individual NPDES permits for industrial and municipal sources), and may seek authorization to implement other parts of the national program including, Federal facilities, the national pretreatment program, general permits, and/or the municipal sewage sludge program. Ifthe State has only partial authority (e.g., only the base NPDES permits program), EPA will implement the other program activities (e.g., pretreatment program, Federal facilities, and sewage sludge program). For example, where a State has an approved NPDES Program but has not received EPA approval of its State sludge management program, the EPA Region is responsible for including conditions to implement the Part 503 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge in NPDES permits issued to treatment works inthat State. EPA may issue aseparate NPDES permit with the applicable sewage sludge standards and requirements, or negotiate with the State on joint issuance of NPDES permits containing the Part 503 sewage sludge standards. The same process also applies where aState has not received approval of its pretreatment program or Federal facilities. One exception to this process iswhere a NPDES-authorized State, Territory, or Tribe is not approved to implement the general permit program. Inthese cases, EPA may not 

### issue ageneral permit inthat State, Territory, or Tribe.
Ingeneral, once a State, Territory, or Tribe isauthorized to issue permits, EPA is prohibited from conducting these activities. However, EPA must be provided with
BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -27

### Overvlew ofthe NPDESPennittlng Process Chapter3

an opportunity to review each permit issued by the State, Territory, or Tribe and may formally object to elements that conflict with Federal requirements. Ifthe permitting agency does not address the objection points, EPA will issue the permit directly. Once a permit is issued through a government agency, itisenforceable by the approved State, Territorial, and Federal agencies (including EPA) with legal authority to implement and enforce the permit, and by private citizens (in Federal court).

28-MfM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Chapter 4

The Permit Application Process

This chapter describes the NPDES permit application process including the permit writer’s role in reviewing the application and evaluating background information about the applicant. Through this process, the permit writer gains an understanding of the circumstances ofthe discharge and the characteristics of the proposed effluent that will allow proper development of permit limits and conditions. 

## 4.1 NPDES Permit Application Forms When itis determined that afacility needs an individual NPDES permit, the facility must submit an application for a permit. Application forms and requirements are specific to the type offacility and discharge. NPDES permit application regulations are contained in40 CFR Part 122, Subpart B. Most application requirements are contained informs developed by EPA. Exhibit 4-1 provides an overview ofthe types of dischargers required to submit NPDES application forms, identifies the form(s) that they must submit, and references the corresponding NPDES regulation citation. It should be noted that authorized States are not required to use the EPA application forms. However, any alternative form used by an authorized State must contain the information required in40 CFR Part 122, Subpart B. An application form must also be submitted for permit renewals. Permits may no longer be renewed by submitting a
EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -29The Permit Application Process Chapter 4
EXHIBIT 4-1 Applications Forms Required for NPDES DischargesRegulatory Citation Type of Facility Status Forms (40 CFR Part 122) All NPDES Applicants (except MS4s) New and Existing Form1 122.21(f) Municipal Facilities

- Major POTWs (Facilities with flows greater than 1.0mgd or populations New and Standard 122.21(j) greater than 10,000, or receive Existing A (reserved) industrial process wastewater)

- Minor POTWs
Industrial Facilities

- Manufacturing Facilities

- Commercial Facilities

- Mining Activities

- Silvicultural Activities

- Water Treatment Facilities Concentrated Animal Production Facilities

- Animal Feedlots

- Hatcheries New and Existing New Existing Short A

2D
2c Non-Process 2E Wastewater

New and Existing 2B 122.21(j) (reserved) 122.21(f) and (k) 122.21(f) and (g) 122.21(f) and (h)

122.21(f) and 122.21(i)

Storm water discharges associated with industrial activities New and Existing 2F 122.26(c) Storm water discharges from MS4s serving a population greater than 100,000 New and Existing None 122.26(d) Key: Form 1-Generalinformation. StandardFormA-Municipal (newandexistingmajormunicipalfacilities). ShortFormA-Municipal (newandexistingminormunicipalfacilities). Form2B- ConcentratedAnimal FeedingOperationsandAquaticAnimal ProductionFacilities. Form2C- ExistingManufacturing,Commercial,Mining, andSilvicultural Operations. Form2D- NewSourcesandNewDischargersApplicationforPermittoDischargeProcess Wastewater. Form2E- FacilitiesWhichDoNotDischargeProcess Wastewater. Form2F- Application forPermitToDischargeStormWaterDischargesAssociatedWithIndustrial

Activity. 30 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### ThePermit Application Process Chapter 4

letter stating that no significant changes occurred atthe facility during the term ofthe expiring permit. 

## Form 1-General Information

All facilities applying for an individual NPDES permit, with the exception of MS4s applying for a municipal storm water permit, must submit 

### Form 1. Form 1 requires general facility information including:

. Name, mailing address, facility contact, and facility location

l Standard industrial classification (SIC) code and a brief description of nature of business

l Topographic map showing the location ofthe existing or proposed intake and discharge structures. 

## 4.1.1 Municipal Application Requirements(FormAandShort Form A) Ail new and existing POTWs must submit 

### Form A or 

### Short Form A (used for minor POTWs). POTWs with design infiuent flows equal to or greater than 1 million gallons per day (mgd) and POTWs with approved pretreatment programs, or POTWs required to develop a pretreatment program are required to submit Form A. Form A requires submission ofthe following types of information:

. Name, mailing address, authorized agent, and facility location

l Collection system type, areas served, and total population served

. Description of influent, including major industrial facilities discharging to the system

. Description oftreatment practices and plant design, schedule of improvements, number of discharge points, total volume discharged, and receiving water name. Although testing ofthe infiuent and effluent for specific pollutants is not required, Form A does request any available data on the following parameters: flow, pH, temperature, fecal coliform, BOD,, COD ortotal organic carbon (TOC), total residual chlorine, total solids, total dissolved solids, settleable matter, ammonia, Kjeidahl nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen. The municipal application regulations also require POTWs with design infiuent flows equal to or

&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ 

### Manual-31The 

### Permit Applhtion 

### Process Chapter 4

greater than 1.Omgd, and POTWs with approved pretreatment programs, to submit results ofwhole effluent toxicity (WET) testing (40 CFR 9122,21(j)(l)). In addition, PO7Ws with approved pretreatment programs are also required to submit a written technical evaluation ofthe need to revise local limits (40 CFR 5122.21(j)(4)).
POTWs with design flows of less than 1.Omgd, and which are not required to have an approved pretreatment program, may generally use Short Form A. Short Form A requires only general information such as the name, mailing address, and facility location as well as a description of any major changes atthe facility.
Reg Update: On December 6, 1995, EPA proposed revisions tothe municipal application requirements and accompanying application forms [60 FR625451. The proposed regulation replaces Form 1,Form A, and Short Form Awith anew Form 2A for use byall municipal dischargers. Form2A isdivided into five individual sections that must becompleted depending onthe characteristics ofthe municipal discharger. Inthe same proposal, EPA introduced Form 2s toobtain information on municipal sewage sludge such asvolume, characteristics, and sludge use ordisposal practices. The Form 2S regulations will replace the interim sludge use and disposal application requirements that are currently in use. 

## 4.1.2 Non-Municipal Permit Application Requirements in addition to Form 1,which requests general information, non-municipal dischargers applying for an individual NPDES permit are required to submit additional detailed facility information. The types offorms required depend upon the activities of the facility applying for a permit. Each ofthe forms and the types of activities for which they apply are briefly described below. 

### Form 2B-New and Existing Animal Feeding Operations and Aquatic Animal Production Facilities Owners of new and existing animal feeding operations and aquatic animal production facilities must submit Application 

### Form 28. The types of information required by Form 2B include:

l Animal feeding operations

- Type and number of animals inopen confinement and housed under roof

- Number of acres used for confinement feeding

32-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualThe Permit Application Process Chapter 4

- Calendar month of maximum feeding and total mass offood fed during that month

l Aquatic animal production facilities

- Maximum daily and average monthly flow from each outfall

- Number of ponds, raceways, and similar structures

- Total yearly and maximum harvestable weight for each species of aquatic animal. 

### Form 2C-Existing Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining, and Silvicultural Discharges Operators of existinq (i.e., currently pemritted) manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural discharges must submit Application 

### Form 2C. The types of information required in Form 2C include:

l Outfall location(s)

. Flow characteristics

l Sources of potlutants

l tntake and effluent characteristics

. Pollutants expected to be present

. Treatment technologies

l Production information (ifapplicable).
Quantitative effluent data requirements for existing industrial dischargers varies depending on the facility’s discharge characteristics and the types of pollutants expected to be present inthe discharge. 

### Form 20 -New Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining, and Silvicultural Discharges Operators ofnew manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural discharges must submit Application 

### Form 20. “New” dischargers are those that have not previously obtained permits for adischarge and have not commenced operation. The types of information required in Form 2D include:

0 Expected outfall location(s)

. Date of expected commencement of discharge

0ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ 

### Manual-33

### ThePermit Application Process Chapter 4

. Expected flow characteristics

l Sources of pollutants

l Treatment technologies

. Production information (ifapplicable)

. Expected intake and effluent characteristics. 

### Form 2E-Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining, and Silvicultural Facilities that Discharge Only Nonprocess Wastewater Operators applying for an individual NPDES permit for manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural facilities that are not regulated by an effluent limitation guideline or new source performance standard, and which discharge only non-process wastewaters, must submit Application 

### Form 2E. “Nonprocess wastewaters” include sanitary wastes, restaurant or cafeteria wastes, and non-contact cooling water, but do not include storm water. Storm water is specifically excluded from the definition of “non-process wastewater.” The types of information required in Form 2E include:

l Outfall location(s)

. Type ofwaste discharged

. Effluent characteristics, including quantitative data for selected parameters

. Flow characteristics

. Treatment technologies. 

### Form 2F-Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities Operators applying for an individual NPDES permit for discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity must submit Application 

### Form 2F. The types of information required in Form 2F include:

l Atopographic map and estimates of impervious surfaces

. Descriptions of material management practices and control measures

l A certification that outfalls have been evaluated for non-storm water discharges
l Descriptions of past leaks and spills 0 Analytical data from each outfall for several specified parameters.

34-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manualfhe Permit Application Process Chapter 4



### Storm Water Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Serving a Population of Greater Than 100,000 The 1990 Storm Water application regulations (55 Ff?48062), listthe application requirements for operators of a large or medium MS4 to submit atwo-part application. Part 1application information was required to be submitted by large MS4s (serving a population >250,000) by November 18, 1991 and by medium MS4s (serving a population >lOO,OOObut <250,000) by May 18, 1992. Part 2 application information was required to be submitted by large MS4s by November 16, 1992 and by medium MS4s by May 17, 1993. The following summarizes the key requirements of each part ofthe application:

. Part 1ofthe application must include:

- General information (e.g., name, address)

- Existing legal authorities and any additional authority required

- Source identification information

- Discharge characterization, including results from dry weather flow screening

- Identification of 5to 10 representative outfails for storm water sampling

- Description of existing storm water management practices

- Descriptions of existing financial budget and resources available to complete Part 2 ofthe application.

. Part 2 ofthe application must include:

- Demonstration of adequate legal authority

- Identification of any major storm sewer outfalls

- Discharge characterization data from sampling three representative storm events
- Proposed storm water management program
- Assessment of controls, including expected reductions in pollutant loadings

- Fiscal analysis, including necessary capital and operation and maintenance expenditures for each year ofthe permit.
Under the NPDES regulations, permittees are required to reapply for a new NPOES permit prior to the expiration oftheir existing permit. However, inthe case of storm water permits for MS4s, Part 1and Part 2 application requirements were intended only for the initial issuance of a MS4 permit and specific requirements for reapplication have not been defined inthe regulations. On May 17, 1996, EPA issued
8ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -35fhe Permit Application Process Chapter 4

a policy which sets forth astreamlined approach for reapplication requirements for operators of MS4s. ttallows municipalities to use recommended changes submitted in their fourth annual report as the principal component oftheir reapplication package. It also encourages changes to monitoring programs to make them appropriate and useful to storm water management decisions. With the policy, EPA seeks to improve municipal storm water management efforts by allowing municipalities to target their resources for the greatest environmental benefit. 

## 4.1.3 Application Requirementsfor NPDESGeneralPermits As previously discussed, general permits (see 40 CFR 5122.28) are permits that are developed for storm water dischargers or aspecific category of dischargers within aspecified geographic or political boundary. The use of a general permit may simplify the permitting process for both EPA and the permittee. Unlike individual permits, however, operators can only apply for coverage under a general permit ifone has been issued that is applicable tothe type offacility for which coverage is sought and covers the facility’s activities. In addition, the permitting authority may determine that a general permit is not appropriate for a particular facility applying for coverage under the general permit, and can require the facility to apply for an individual permit. Furthermore, a facility that otherwise qualifies for ageneral permit may opt to apply for an individual permit.
An applicant for a general permit, inalmost all cases, must apply by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the permit. The contents of a NOI, and any additional information requirements, must be specified inthe general permit and in the fact sheet or instructions, and at aminimum must include the following:

. Name and address ofthe owner or operator

. Name and address ofthe facility

. Type offacility or discharges

. The receiving stream(s). 

## 4.2 Application Deadlines The Federal regulations contained in40 CFR $122.21 require that applications for new discharges be made no later than 180 days before discharges actually begin.

36-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### ThePermit Application Process Chapter 4

Appkations for permit renewals (Le., for existing dischargers) must be made at least 180 days before the expiration ofthe existing NPDES permit. Authorized states, however, may have slightly different schedules but generally no less stringent. Furthermore, the State Director orthe Regional Administrator may allow individual applications to be submitted at dates later than these but not later than the expiration date of the existing permit.
Itshould be noted that according to 40 CFR 9122.6, an expired NPDES permit remains in effect until the new permit is issued as long as the application for permit renewal was submitted on time and complete (per 40 CFR 5122.21). However, if State law does not allow expired permits to remain in effect until a permit is reissued, or ifthe permit application is not on time and complete, the facility isconsidered to be discharging without a permit from the time the permit expired until the effective date of the new permit. 

## 4.3 Review oftheApplication The contents of individual NPDES permits are based in par? upon the information included inthe application. Thus, the application must be complete and accurate before a permit writer can properly develop a permit. 

### Exhibit 4-2 depicts a general process for reviewing a permit application.
After the initial review of an application, the permit writer may request that an applicant submit other information which may be needed indeciding whether to issue a permit. The requested information may include:

. Additional information, quantitative data, or recalculated data

l Submission of a new form (ifan inappropriate form was used)

. Resubmission of application (if incomplete or outdated information was initially submitted).
A considerable amount ofcorrespondence, therefore, may be required before the permit writer obtains an application that can be considered complete and accurate.

BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -37The Permit Applhtion Process 

### Chapter 4



## ReviewActivities EXHIBIT 4-2

Permit Application Review

1 Review Permit+AppIication 1

* Isthe application on the correct form? 1 \ No w

Does the application include alloutfalls, priority pollutant, sludge andtoxicity data when required? No w 

## Applicant Follow-Up *

l (asnecessary)

Require newapplication on correct form

Establish schedule forsubmittal of required information I

Doesthe application have allofthe information necessary toadequately characterize the nature andquantity of pollutants inthe effluent andtheir impact onthe receiving water? No Establish schedule forsubmittal of required information L

Areallcalculation andflow diagrams correct

May begin public notice of application now orafter facility inspection Request recalculation and resubmittat I

38-8Ef# NPDES Permit Wrfters’ ManualThe Permit Applhtion Process Chapter 4



## 4.3.1TheCompleteApplication Regulations under 40 CFR 5122.21 (e) state that the Director “shall not issue a permit before receiving a complete application....” At a minimum, the application form must have all applicable spaces filled in. Instructions for the apptication form states that all items must be completed and that the statement “not applicable” (NA) be used to indicate that the item had been considered by the applicant. Blanks on aform can occur for a number of reasons, such as:

l The response was inadvertently left out; or

l The applicant had difficulty determining the correct response and rather than provide misleading or incorrect information, left the space blank.
A response to the blank items must be obtained by contacting the facility in writing or, in some cases, by telephone. Because of the administrative record (discussed inChapter 11) that must be maintained in processing an application, and the possibility of legal challenges regarding permit decisions, itis recommended that only minor items be handled by telephone, and even these should be documented in writing.
Ifthe changes or corrections to any application are extensive, the permit writer may require the permit applicant to submit anew application. Supplementary information, such as more detailed production information or maintenance and operating data for atreatment system, may also be required to process the permit. Supplementary information can also be obtained at a later date when the permit writer is actually drafting the permit. According to 40 CFR 5122.21(e), an application is considered to be complete when the permit writer issatisfied that all required information has been submitted. 

## 4.3.2CommonOmissionsandErrorsinApplications This section identifies some ofthe most common omissions and errors found in NPDES permit applications. Examples ofways to identify missing information and of verifying the accuracy ofsome ofthe data are also provided.
One ofthe most common items overlooked isthe provision of atopographic map which is required as an attachment to Form 1. Other industrial or municipal8EFY4NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -39The Permit Applhtion Process Chapter 

### 4

specific information is also often omitted. For example, industrial applicants sometimes fail to submit a process line diagram required by Part II-A of Form 2C. The process line diagram is important for ensuring that the location and description of the outfalls and the description of processes (Parts Iand 11-Bof Form 2C) given by the applicants are accurate. Often, applicants do not properly submit the effluent characterization data required for the permit applications. Applicants may fail to submit data necessary to properly characterize the facility. The following highlights some ofthe data requirements that are required inapplications:

. POTWs with design flows greater than 1mgd or those with a pretreatment program are required to submit valid WET testing data. This requirement may be satisfied ifthe expiring permit contains a requirement for effluent characterization ofWET. The permit writer should note the use ofthis option on the fact sheet.

l POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) must submit any sludge monitoring data; adescription of sludge use and disposal procedures atthe facility; annual sludge production volumes; and for land application sites, information on the suitability ofthe site and a description ofthe site management. A land application plan is required for any sites not identified inthe application.

. Every non-POTW applicant must submit data for BOD, -COD, TOC, TSS, ammonia, temperature (winter and summer), and pH.

. Non-municipal dischargers categorized as “primary industries” have some mandatory testing requirements for toxic pollutants (see 40 CFR 5122.21, Appendix D,Table Iand Table II;also listed inApplication Form 2C). Primary industries are identified inAppendix A of40 CFR Part 122. Primary industries that are also small businesses [see 40 CFR $122.21 (g)(8)] may be exempted from these testing requirements. Existing dischargers who believe certain pollutants may be present intheir effluent must test for those pollutants (40 CFR s122.21 Appendix D,Table IV and Table V).

. Industrial facilities that are subject to production- orflow-based effluent guidelines must report production rates and flow data, using units of measure corresponding to applicable effluent limitations guidelines, that will allow calculation of effluent limits.

l Sample types for all required pollutants and parameters must be appropriate for the parameter being analyzed (as per 40 CFR Part 136; see Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.4 for more information). For example, only grab samples may be used for pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols, volatile $0-8EW NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualThe Permit Applhtion Process Chapter 4 organics, residual chlorine, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus. Examples ofthe types of data that the permit writer will need to obtain before the application can be considered complete are given inthe text boxes which follow.

Are required toxic organic pollutants (gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer [GCIMS] fractions) listed? Example: An application from aplastics processor fails to list any GWMS fraction. Discussion: The plastics processor is required totest forthevolatile GUMS fraction (Table 2C-2 inthe application form instructions and 40 CFR §122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) ofthe NPDES regulations).

Are required heavy metals listed? Example: Aprimary felt producer marks thallium and beryllium asbelieved absent inthe wastewater. Discussion: Although thallium and beryllium are not expected to befound in afelt producer’s discharge, page ZC-3 of the application form instructions and 40 CFR 9122.21(g)(7)(ii)(B) require testing forthese metals. Occasionally, unexpected contaminants will bepresent in awaste stream due topoor housekeeping, unusual production methods, etc. The comprehensive testing requirements that apply tothevarious categories of industry are designed to determine whether any unexpected contaminants are present insignificant quantities, aswell asto determine levels of pollutants that are known to bepresent. Inthe above example, the submission is incomplete because additional information is needed and “believed absent” iswrongly indicated.

Are all expected pollutants listed? Example: Aproducer ofwood-resin-based derivatives does not indicate the presence ofzinc in his wastewater. Discussion: Testing for zinc is required. Zinc is used asacatalyst inthe production ofwood-resin-based derivatives. This type of information can befound inthe effluent limitations guidelines development documents.

&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -41The Permit Applhtion Process Chapter 4

What pollutant data are needed tocharacterize the industries above? Example: Consider the plastics processor, the felt producer, and the producer ofwood-resin-based derivatives, mentioned above, and answer the following questions:

. ‘Forwhich toxic organic pollutants arethey required totest?

. Forwhich heavy metals arethey required totest?

. Which metals would you expect tofind intheir wastewaters regardless ofwhether testing is required ornot? Discussion: The application form inTable 2C-2 and 40 CFR @22.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) ofthe NPDES regulations require testing ofthe volatile GCMKi fraction bythe plastics processor, and testing ofallfour GC/MS fractions by the felt producer and the producer ofwood-resin-based derivatives. Page 2C-3 ofthe application instructions and 40 CFR 9122.21(g)(7)(ii)(B) require testing ofallofthe metals listed in item Vpart Cl of the application form byallthree manufacturers. Forthe expected metals, seethe effluent limitations guidelines development documents for information. 

## 1.3.3TheAccurate Application All information submitted on apermit application should be accurate, inaddition to being complete. Although itmay be difficult to detect certain inaccuracies, a number of common mistakes can be readily detected. When mistakes are detected, they must be corrected. The permit writer should follow the same procedures for correcting inaccurate information as used for obtaining missing information. The following text boxes contain examples that reflect the types of questions that the permit writer may consider while reviewing the permit application.
Can weverify flow data using awater balance calculation? Example: An industrial user has estimated awastestream flow of50,000 gpdusing water usage records. However, a review ofhistorical water usage records andanoldpermit application indicates wastewater flows ranged from 100,000 to 150,000 gpd. Thefacility hadnot instituted anywater-reduction measures, significantly changed itsprocess operations, ordecreased itsnumber ofemployees. 

# IDiscussion: An inspection ofthefacility revealed twoseparate water meters (oneforsanitary andoneforprocess water); the industrial user had overlooked thesanitary meter. Further, theprocess water meterwasfound tobe defective. Subsequent flow monitoring ofthetotalwastestream recorded aflow of 125,000 gpd. Anew water meter was installed and concurrent wastestream flow monitoring andwater meter readings resulted in thefollowing water balances:

. Water In (based onbothwater meter readings): 17,000 gpdsanitary line) 148,000gpd (131,000 gpdprocess line and

. Water Out (based onwastestream flow monitoring): 125,000 gpdtotal wastestream discharged tosewer system. Evaporative and consumption losses were estimated at23,000 gpd (15percent oftotalwater usage). 42-8EfR NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualThe Permit Applhtion Process Chapter 4

Dotheconcentration, mass, and flow values correspond? Example: Supposethemaximumdaily flow isshown as 1.2million gallons perday (MGD), the maximum daily suspended solids concentration is23 milligrams perliter (mg/l), and the maximum daily mass discharge is reported as690 pounds per day (Ibs/day). 23 mg/fx8.34 x 1.2MGD =230 lb/d The mass corresponding tothe solids concentration (23 mg/l) and flow (1.2 MGD) is230 pounds per day. However, the maximum daily mass discharge is690 pounds perday. Discussion: Assuming that the maximum daily flow and the maximum daily concentration occurred onthe,same day (worst case scenario), the highest mass discharge should not exceed 230 pounds perday. Since the applicant reported amaximum mass discharge of690 pounds perday, asignificant discrepancy is indicated. The permit writer should contact the facility to resolve the discrepancy.

Do concentration values correspond with analytical detection limits? Example: The acid GUMS fraction (phenols) compounds are all reported as less than 1mgll. Discussion: According to40 CFR Part 136,the detection limits forthe compounds inthis organic fraction are all near 0.01 mg/l. Probably the 4AAP method for phenols was used, rather than the required testing procedure using GCYMS. 

## 4.4 Facility Information Review In addition to the submitted application form, the permit writer should consider collecting other information that could be utilized for development of permit limits and conditions. 

## 4.4.1 Background Information Review Prior to developing permit conditions, the permit writer should collect and review any additional background information on the facility. Much ofthis information may already be available inthe permit file. In-house file information typically includes:

l The current permit

l The fact sheet or statement of basis for the current permit

8EF# NPOES Permit Writers’ Manual -43The Permit Applhtion Process Chapter 4

. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)

l Compliance inspection reports

. Engineering reports

l Correspondence or information on changes in plant conditions or problems, and compliance issues.
Much ofthis information, particularly DMR data, may be already stored in an interoffice automated data tracking system such as the EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS).
The permit writer may check with other permit writers who have permitted similar types offacilities to see ifthere are any special considerations related to the facility to be permitted. A permit writer also may wish to discuss compliance issues, changes, or history ofcomplaints with compliance personnel who conducted previous inspections of the facility. Examples of some other sources of information that could be used by the permit writer include:

. EPA development documents that contain detailed information that was collected by the EPA for the purpose ofdeveloping effluent guidelines and categorical pretreatment standards for avariety of industrial categories

. Reference textbooks, which address specific industry categories and which are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), United States EPA library and other libraries. These technical documents provide information about manufacturing processes and wastestreams.

. EPA’s Treatability Man~a/,~ which isafive-volume guidance (also refer to glossary) and which provides detailed descriptions of industrial processes, potential pollutants from each process, appropriate treatment technologies, and cost estimating procedures

. Receiving water quality data (e.g., the EPA Storage and Retrieval data base [STORETj)

l Related environmental permits that could provide site-specific background information about the types of pollutants and wastestreams at afacility, including, for example:

- RCRA permit-which regulates the management of hazardous waste from its generation through ultimate disposal for waste generators,

3USEPA(1980). Treatability Manual, Volumes I-K EPA-600/8-80-042a-e. OfficeofResearch and Development.
44-&EW NPOES Permit Writers’ ManualThe Permit Applhtion Process 

## Chapter4 transporters, and owners and operators oftreatment, storage, and disposal facilities [42 USC 6901 et seq.1

- Clean Air Act permit-which regulates the discharge of atmospheric pollutants.

. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which isaccessible on EPA’s mainframe and through a public online service. TRI contains facility information on over 300 listed toxic chemicals released by specific facilities, including chemical identification, quantity of chemical released to various environmental media, offsite waste transfer and waste treatment and minimization information.
Ifthe permit writer must address special conditions inthe permits for municipal dischargers for development or implementation of a pretreatment program, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), sewage sludge use or disposal, or storm water discharges, information relevant to these issues would need to be obtained. Such information may be found in:

l Annual pretreatment reports, pretreatment compliance inspections and audits

l CSO reports

l Bypass notifications or SSOs reports

l Storm water discharge applications or NOI for ageneral permit. 

## 4.4.2 Facility SiteVisits Facility site visits can be invaluable to update information on manufacturing processes, obtain information about the facility’s operations, equipment or management, and to verify application information. A site visit also acquaints the permit writer with the people who will be operating under the permit and participating inthe permit development process.
Site visits may also allow the permit writer to gain a better understanding of more complex facilities. Site visits are especially warranted ifsignificant pollution control or treatment improvements will be required, ifthere have been frequent problems incomplying with the present permit, ifthere are known problems with spills or leaks or with contaminated surface runoff, or ifthere are other onsite activities that may impact the characteristics ofthe discharge from the facility.

iiEpA NPOES Permit Writers’ Manual -45The Permit Application Process Chapter 4 The site visit should include adetailed review of production processes in order to evaluate the types oftoxic or hazardous substances that may be present in raw materials, as well as in products and byproducts. The water uses, the resulting wastewater streams, and any in-process pollution controls should be reviewed. This review is needed to assist in selecting toxic and other pollutants to be limited and in evaluating possible in-process control improvements.
In addition, the site visit should include a review ofthe performance, operation and maintenance practices ofwastewater treatment facilities. This review is useful in evaluating the adequacy of existing treatment performance and assessing the feasibility of improvements and performance. Effluent monitoring points, sampling methods, and analytical techniques should also be examined to identify any needed changes to monitoring requirements and to evaluate the quality of DMR data.
Raw material and product storage and loading areas, sludge storage and disposal areas, hazardous waste management facilities, including onsite disposal areas, and all process areas should be observed to determine the need for controls on surface runoff and for specific best management practices (BMPs). As noted previously, the information from other environmental programs (e.g., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act [CERCLA]; RCRA) may be important inthis regard.
While onsite, the permit writer should note any needs for spill prevention and housekeeping problems, which are not usually well-described in permit applications. If allowed, photographs of problem areas should be taken for future use during permit preparation. A meeting with management should be included ifnecessary to ask questions and clarify information on the permit application. Ifany inaccuracies inthe application were found as a result ofthe site visit, corrected information should be requested at this time.
The time required to conduct a site visit will vary according to the complexity of the facility. For facilities with only afew basic processes, one main waste treatment system, limited in-process controls, few surface runoff outfalls, and limited onsite management of sludges or hazardous wastes, an adequate site visit can most likely

46-8El3l NPOES Permit Wrfters’ ManualThe Permit Application Process Chapter 4

be completed in 1day. Complex, larger plants with several treatment systems, numerous outfalls, and extensive ancillary activities may require several days.
Time spent on site visits often results intime savings during permit preparation. However, time and/or travel resources are generally not adequate to allow viewing of all facilities to be permitted. In such cases, the permit writer may be able to obtain much of the desired information from the next {or previous) compliance inspection performed atthe facility.
Aerial photographs are also an excellent aid for conducting a plant visit and may provide much ofthe needed information on the potential for contamination of surface runoff and on ancillary activities inthe absence of asite visit or inspection. In addition, comparison of aerial photographs with site and process diagrams provided with the application may provide the permit writer with a complete visual description of the facility. Aerial photographs may be obtained from avariety of sources, including the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Environmental Services Division in some EPA Regions, the National Enforcement Investigation Center, Las Vegas, Nevada; the Environmental Photo Interpretation Lab, Vint Hill, Virginia; and private contractors. 

## 4.5 Confidential Information In accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, information submitted to EPA pursuant to the NPDES permitting regulations under 40 CFR Part 122 may be claimed as confidential by the submitter. However, EPA has determined that the following information will not be held confidential:

. Name and address ofthe applicant

. Permit applications and information submitted with applications

. Permits

. Effluent data. Any claims of confidentiality must be made atthe time of submission or the information will not be considered confidential.
Information that may be treated as confidential includes material related to manufacturing processes unique to the applicant, or ifsuch information might 8Ep# NPDES Permit Wrlters’ Manual -47fhe Permit Application Process Chapter 4

adversely affect the competitive position ofthe applicant ifreleased to the public. Under these circumstances, the permit writer will be required to treat the information as confidential in accordance with the requirements in40 CFR Part 2.

48-8BY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Chapter 5

Technology-Based Effluent Limits

When developing effluent limits for a NPDES permit, a permit writer must consider limits based on both the technology available to treat the pollutants (i.e., technology-based effluent limits), and limits that are protective ofthe designated uses ofthe receiving water (water quality-based effluent limits). This chapter discusses considerations for deriving technology-based effluent limitations for both non-municipal (i.e., industrial) and municipal discharges.
There are two general approaches for developing technology-based effluent limits for industrial facilities: (1) using national effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and (2) using Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) on acase-by-case basis (in the absence of ELGs). Technology-based effluent limits for municipal facilities (POTWs) are derived from secondary treatment standards. The intent of atechnology-based effluent limitation isto require a minimum level oftreatment for industrial/municipal point sources based on currently available treatment technologies while allowing the discharger to use any available control technique to meet the limitations.
For industrial sources, the national ELGs are developed based on the demonstrated performance of a reasonable level oftreatment that iswithin the

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -49Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

economic means of specific categories of industrial facilities. Where national ELGs have not been developed, the same performance-based approach is applied to a specific industrial facility based on the permit writer’s BPJ. In some cases, effluent limits based on ELGs and BPJ (as well as water quality considerations) may be included in a single permit.

5.1 Application of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations for Non-Municipal Dischargers When developing technology-based effluent limitations for non-municipal dischargers, the permit writer must consider allapplicable standards and requirements for&l pollutants discharged. As indicated above, applicable technology-based requirements may include national standards and requirements applicable to all facilities in specified industrial categories, or facility-specific technology-based requirements based on the permit writer’s BPJ. It is important, therefore, that permit writers understand the basis of the national standards and the differences between the various required levels of treatment performance. This section describes the statutory and regulatory foundation of the performance-based standards, and discusses considerations in the application of these standards for non-municipal dischargers.

5.1.1 Statutory and Regulatory Foundation Originally, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 directed EPA to develop standards of performance (effluent limitation guidelines) for industrial categories. Specifically, for “existing” industrial dischargers, the Act directed the achievement: “...by July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations which will require application of the best practicable control technology currently available [BPT], and by July 1, 1983, of effluent limitations which will require application of the best available technology economically achievable [BAT].”
EPA defined BPT performance as the “average of the best existing performance by well operated plants within each industrial category or subcategory.” The BAT level of performance was defined as the “very best control and treatment measures that have been or are capable of being achieved.” The 1972 amendments, however, made no distinction regarding the application of BPT or BAT to different types of pollutants (i.e.,

50 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

BPT and BAT applied to all pollutants). The CWA did provide additional guidance for determining the economic achievability of BPT and BAT, The BPT standards required that effluent limits be justified interms ofthe “total cost of [industry wide] application of the technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved.” Thus, BPT required EPA to consider a cost-benefit test that considered a broad range of engineering factors relating to acategory’s ability to achieve the limits. For BAT, the Agency must still consider the cost of attainability, however, it is not required to balance cost against the effluent reduction benefit.
In addition to BPT and BAT requirements, Section 306 ofthe 1972 amendments established more restrictive requirements for “new sources.” EPA has defined “new source” as any facility that commenced construction following the publication ofthe proposed standards of performance. The intent ofthis special set of guidelines isto set limitations that represent state-of-the-art treatment technology for new sources because these dischargers have the opportunity to install the latest in treatment technology at the time ofstart-up. These standards, identified as new source performance standards (NSPS), are described as the best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives including, where practicable, standards permitting no discharge of pollutants. NSPSs are effective on the date ofthe commencement of a new facility’s operation and the facility must demonstrate compliance within 90 days [see 40 CFR $122.29(d)]. A major difference between NSPS and either BPT or BAT, isthe absence ofthe kind of requirements for a detailed consideration of costs and benefits when establishing the technology requirements.
As noted above, the 1972 amendments tasked EPA with developing ELGs representing application of BPT, BAT, and NSPS; however, EPA was unable to complete development of all effluent guidelines within the statutory deadlines. In addition, EPA did not fully address toxic discharges inthe guidelines itdid promulgate. As a result, EPA was sued by several environmental groups for failing to accomplish the promulgation of effluent guidelines as directed by the 1972 amendments. As a consequence ofthe suit, EPA and the environmental groups entered into asettlement agreement that required EPA to develop a program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating BAT effluent guidelines, pretreatment standards, and NSPSs (NRDC v. Train, 1976). The standards focused on 65 toxic “priority pollutants” (including classes

8i3Y4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -51Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

of pollutants) for 21 major categories of industries (known as “primary” industries). This settlement was incorporated inthe 1977 amendments to the Act. This settlement was further amended to include atotal of 34 major categories of industries and 129 priority pollutants (NRDC v. Costle, March 1979). [Note: The list of priority pollutants was subsequently revised to include 126 specific parameters which are listed in Appendix A of40 CFR 5423.1
In light ofthe settlement agreement, the 1977 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (renamed the Clean Water Act [CWA]) revised the scope and application of BAT requirements tofocus solely on toxic and nonconventional 

### pollutants. The amendments also required the application ofthe best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants. Both the BAT and BCT standards were defined to represent the best control and treatment measures that have been developed or that are capable of being developed within the industrial category or subcategory. With respect to the cost reasonableness, the 1977 CWA left the BAT definition relatively unchanged. For BCT, EPA was to consider the reasonableness ofthe relationship between the cost of attaining a reduction in effluent discharge and the benefits that would result. The cost of meeting BCT limits was expected by Congress to be comparable to the costs of achieving secondary treatment [see discussion in Section 5.21for POTWs.
As noted inthe discussion ofthe statutory evolution ofthe technology-based standards, deadlines for development ofthe various standards were established by the CWA and amendments. Due totechnical and administrative difficulties, most of the initial deadlines were postponed. A summary offinal statutory deadlines for the different required levels of treatment technologies is provided in Exhibit 5-l.
When applying applicable ELGs in permits, permit writers need to be aware that they do not have the authority to extend statutory deadlines in a NPDES permit; thus, all applicable technology-based requirements (i.e., ELGs and BPJ) must be applied in NPDES permits without the benefit of acompliance schedule.

52-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

## EXHIBIT 5-l Statutory Deadlinesfor BPT, BAT, andBCT Pollutant Level ofTreatment Statutory Deadlines Conventional Conventional ?Jonconventional Nonconventional Toxic Toxic BPT BCT BPT BAT BPT BAT July 1, 1977 March 31, 1989 July 1, 1977 March 31, 1989 July 1. 1977 March 31, 1989 

## 51.2 DevelopmentofNational Effluent Limitations Guidelinesand Performance Standards Effluent limitations guidelines and performance standards are established by EPA for different industrial categories since the best control technology for one industry is not necessarily the best for another. These guidelines are developed based on the degree of pollutant reduction attainable by an industrial category through the application of control technologies, irrespective ofthe facility location. Using these factors, similar facilities are regulated inthe same manner. Intheory, for example, a pulp and paper mill on the west coast ofthe United States would be required to meet the same technology-based limitations as an identical plant located on the east coast (unless there were special site-specific concerns that had to be addressed).
To date, EPA has established guidelines and standards for more than 50 different industrial categories (e.g., metal finishing facilities, steam electric power plants, iron and steel manufacturing facilities). These guidelines appear in40 CFR Parts 405499, a list of which isprovided inAppendix B. Additionally, Section 304(m) ofthe 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA) requires EPA to publish a biennial plan for developing new ELGs and aschedule for the annual review and revision of existing promulgated guidelines. As such, EPA isconstantly developing new guidelines, and revising or updating existing guidelines. Developing ELGs is acomplicated and time-consuming effort. A schematic showing the general guidelines development process is presented in Exhibit 5-2. The regulations are based on complex engineering and economic studies that determine a subcategorization scheme for each industrial category and the wastewater

&ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -53Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Urn&s 

## EXHIBIT 5-2 Effluent GuidelinesFlowchart

Critiil Path 

## b Non-Critiil Path mm==) EffluentGuidelinePlan 

# I Reviewavailabledata

- identifydatagaps 

# I I ..........m..===~1=1=m===

. . 7
SelectPlantsforVisits

PlantVisits

- Process8treatmentsassessment

- In-process

8streamsampling

.

.

.

. .

. .

. StatisticalAnalysis .

. .

. offielddata
.

. H

. .

. . I~BB~=B==m~=~~~D~===~ l mmmmmmmmmmmmm1~~ I I I AssessTechnology I I technologypertorrnance,

wateruse. I costs,residuals,etc. I -------m---f------ s “““‘1 l Technology : Subcategorization : Economic I Costing I 1 Analysis I I I , I I

. . . . . . .

.

9f.lE.10

SelectPreferred 

# v Optrons

jl
54-86% NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Umits

characteristics and treatment capabilities of each industrial category and/or subcategory. The CWA requires EPA to assess certain factors when establishing ELGs, including the following:

. Age ofthe equipment and facilities involved

. Manufacturing processes used

. Engineering aspects ofthe application of recommended control technologies, including process changes and in-plant controls

. Non-water quality impacts, including energy requirements

l cost

. Other factors, as deemed appropriate.
Where necessary, EPA sets multiple ELGs for facilities within a given category, where data indicates varying conditions warranting different requirements. These subdivisions, known as subcategories, provide EPA with asecond level of regulatory control to improve consistency ofthe guidelines within an industrial category.
EPA develops both daily maximum and long-term average limitations for all ELGs, both of which must be included inthe permit by the permit writer. The daily maximum limitations are based on the assumption that daily pollutant measurements are lognormally distributed. Long-term average limitations are based on the distribution of averages of measurements drawn from the distribution of daily measurements. When designing atreatment system, EPA recommends that the permittee target the design of its treatment system to meet the long-term average rather than the daily maximum. The daily maximum is intended to account for variation in effluent concentration above the long-term average.
Itshould be noted that ELGs are not always established for every pollutant present in a point source discharge. In many instances, ELGs are established only for those pollutants that are necessary to ensure that industrial facilities comply with the technology-based requirements ofthe CWA (i.e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS). These are often referred to as “indicator” pollutants. For example, EPA may choose to regulate only one of several metal pollutants that are present inthe effluent from an industrial category; however, compliance with the ELG (i.e., implementation oftechnology-based controls) will ensure that all metals present inthe discharge are adequately treated.

8W4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -55

### Chapter5 Technology-Bassd Effluent Llmlts

EPA produces a number of documents that will prove useful to permit writers responsible for applying ELGs in permits. Most notable are the “Development Documents,” prepared by EPA for every industrial category with ELGs. Development Documents are produced by EPA as part ofthe development of ELGs and provide a detailed overview ofthe limitations development process, including decisions made on applicability ofthe regulations to various process operations. 

## 5.1.3 General ConsiderationsConcerningtheUseofEffluent Limitation Guidelines Derivation of effluent limits based on ELGs requires that the permit writer have a general understanding ofthe ELGs for all industrial categories, and detailed knowledge ofthe ELGs applicable to the permittee. Inorder to properly apply effluent guidelines, there are several considerations that a permit writer must take into account:

l 

### Categorization- Determination ofthe proper category and subcategory of the facility and proper use ofthe guidelines applicable to the category or subcategory under consideration

l 

### Multiple Products or Multiple Categories-Classification of plants that fall under more than one subcategory and/or have multiple products with multiple measures of production

l 

### Production/Flow-based Limitations-Determination ofthe appropriate measure of production or flow

l 

### Tiered Permit Limits-Use of alternate limits for varying production and flow scenarios

. 

### Mass Versus Concentration Limits-Considerations inthe application of mass versus concentration limits.
Each ofthese considerations isdiscussed further below.
Once the appropriate ELGs have been identified, application ofthe limitations is relatively straightforward since itinvolves the application of aguideline that has already been technically derived (and sometimes litigated). Implementation of ELGs does require familiarity with several sources of information, particularly the CFR and the Federal Register (FR). As an example, two pages ofthe ELGs for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing industrial category are presented as 

### Exhibit 5-3.

56-&El34 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

## EXHIBIT 5-3 ELGsfor Iron andSteelManufacturing

wo.u3 SuepAmH-Gmtinmd

..““.....

. “.

........... ...... -. D.oom9

... .... -..... ..... I.

..... “,._.

.... I I O.OOW9 ::Ei an....... _. . ... I..

... . . ...... .... ..... .. ..... PI 4OcFRul.1(7-1*E8lbn)

SUBPART H-continued

IElPTd8mnl- 

# -a-- !qqs

... .” ..“.

.........................

0007w Qoo50) tudtd

.. ..-..........- ........................

ooow3 o#IpI OH

........................ .... ..... ........ ..... I I (‘1 1’1 'WWn 2~ WIQ@ d 6.0 b 0.0. (4) ContinuouB. SUBPARTH

IePTamumthil#lam

0.0984 wtd ._._....--. _....-..-....-...... I. on .._.” ._..” _._......._........_......... 

# I I0.0413 0.0013S a-1 0.00124 o.cm413 I’) r 1 ‘wmhm0mgmdhObO.a t; ~3albath doscaling, reducing.

SUWARTH

!(,tG!bW i!j%i&:::::::::::::::::: t-r 00403 EE2 o:oamo w-....-...-...“-....-...-O.wl3eo.cm642. .------- ..

. .. . .. -. .. . . . . . . o.om220.w on..-...--........-...-..-........-...

F) I’t *v&n~~~e.oi09.a (2) Continuolls. -ART H 1BPTammtllmmbm

. ...-...--...I”...“.........

- ““--...-^.-. ..... “_...““. I EL I Ehl ’whh 6u - d 0.0 to 9.0.

[47 FR 23284, May 27. 198!& 17 FR 11798. Sept. 22.19e21 0420.88 EiYluent limItdons rqnwantZbC T of d!luent redaction

the rppliation of the bd mmihb hchnology acoaomitally mhievnble (BAT). Except as provided in 40CFR 126.30 through 125.32. any existing point source subject to t&a subpart must achieve the following effluent lfmitetions repreeenting the degree of emuent reduction attainable by the app11- cation ofthe beetavailable technology economically achievable. (a)Salt bath descalfng. oxidizing. (1)Batch, sheet andplate.

SUBPARTH

-----

- ............................

. N&d

.. .._....I

................................

( cl:lI ml& (2, Batch, rod andwire.

SMI’ART

H IB4T&UUllmWm

. . . . . I

. . . . . . . . ^

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.

. . . . “...._

. . . . _...“._.....

. . . . . “....... (3)Batch, pipe and tube.

88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -57Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

## EXHIBIT 5-3 ELGsfor Iron andSteelManufacturing (continued)

The discharge of wastewetetr pollutante from any new eource subject to this subpart shall not exceedthe steindardasetforth below. (a)Salt bath deecaling, oxidizing. (1)Batch, sheetandplate.

SUBPART H

- .....--.....- ...................

.. ..-..... ...-.... . ........_.....

_ ...... (4)Continuous.

&WART H

T!3s

....... . .... .. ........ . ...”,.......” .._.-._ 0.0878 chranilml

. .. .. ^

....... -....-..-........- EL2 a001 17 N&al*.................................-......... oltxQs3 o.wo8?8 pt4

. ...... ...... ... ...-.................-.........

('1 r') ‘Wllhhlhorm@dLOb9.0. (2, Batch. rodandwire.

~U~FW?T H aranbm 1...1...---..-. I_. 1 ?&ml ..-... - .-.-,...-....-. - II_.. (b)Salt bath dw. reducing. (1)Batch. SUBPMH

. . ..---.-...-..- tz2zn .--.......-.--- omo2 aooo330 o.oow. am -w...-_.....” 0.00122 o.mo4o7 (2)Continuour.

SUBPART H ‘WllhhUm~dhOb9.O. (3)Batch, pipeandtube.

SUBPART H



# ZztL - O.WSW 

# I I O.QOlOO om789 am04 -I.-.-....-.-“. mom3 O.OOW8 PH- A-e-...,..... ‘Hlhhk~dbOb9.Q.

58-8EFR NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limlts



## Categorization To properly use and apply ELGs, the permit writer must first determine which industrial category(s) applies to the facility being permitted. In determining the appropriate category(s) into which afacility falls, the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code isoften very helpful. SIC codes were developed and are maintained by the Federal government as away to classify establishments by type of activity for comparing economic and other types offacility-specific data. A listing of SIC codes corresponding with ELG categories is provided inAppendix C and is useful for determining applicable industrial categories.
Item V-II of NPDES Application Form Irequires that the applicant provide the SIC code for the activity covered by the permit application. In some instances, the SIC code will identify both the industrial category and the subcategory of a particular facility. Often, the SIC code will identify the appropriate industrial category, but may not necessarily identify the subcategory.

Example: Aprimary smelter ofcopper, SIC code 3331, falls under the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing category listed in 40CFR Part 421. Inthis particular case, SlC code 3331 also clearly identifies the facility inthe Copper Smelting Subcategory.

Example: Afacility that manufactures acrylic acids and acrylic acid esters (SIC code 2869) can easily be classified assubject tothe Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) category based on its SIC code; however, determination ofthe applicable subcategory requires additional effort. Inthis example, the permit writer can determine from a review ofthe industrial categorization discussion inthe Development Document forthe OCPSF industry that facilities performing these manufacturing operations are subject to Subpart G (bulk organic chemicals).
Although SIC codes provide a helpful starting point for categorizing afacility, the permit writer should be cautious of relying exclusively on SIC codes for determining the appropriate industrial category. SIC codes were not developed based on EPA’s industrial classification scheme, orvice versa, and, therefore, may not always correspond exactly with the categorization process. Itisalso important to note that more than one SIC code may apply to afacility. EPA’s Development Documents,
&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -59Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

provide detailed information on the applicability ofthe regulations to specific types of facilities and are useful sources of information when categorizing afacility. Similarly, FR notices ofthe promulgated ELGs provide additional insight into applicability ofthe guideline to various types offacilities.
When determining applicable ELGs, itis best to identify the categories first, and then, through acareful analysis of plant operations, determine the subcategories. The determination of applicable categories can be accomplished by quickly classifying the categories as “not applicable” or “potentially applicable.”

Example: Ifabrewery is under consideration, the Iron and Steel Manufacturing category would obviously not be applicable but Organic Chemicals might be,depending onthe extent of recovery and processing of byproducts. Acareful analysis ofthe production ofthe plant and comparison tothe subcategories under Organic Chemicals would establish which, ifany, ofthe subcategories are applicable.

In many cases, industrial facilities may not clearly fall into acategory or a subcategory, thus requiring some research on the part ofthe permit writer to identify the applicable category and subcategory.

Example: An integrated washing machine producer (SIC code 3633) would becategorized inthe Household Laundry Equipment category (asspecified under the SIC code system). However, depending onthe activities occurring atthe facility, itmay also fall under the Porcelain Enameling, Metal Finishing, or Plastic Molding and Forming categories for purposes ofregulation under effluent guidelines.

After determination of potential categories, the permit writer can conduct a more detailed evaluation to narrow the listto only the applicable categories and subcategories using more detailed facility information. 

## Multiple Productsor Multiple Categories There are instances when one facility produces multiple products, or whose production process iscovered by multiple categories and subcategories. Inthese cases, the permit writer must examine the applicable guidelines closely to ensure that (1) one guideline does not supersede another, and (2) the guidelines are properly
60-8EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

applied. For example, as presented in Exhibit 5-4, the preamble to the final rule for the OCPSF ELGs (52 FR 42523) identified numerous circumstances where the OCPSF regulations are superseded by existing ELGs for other industrial categories.
When afacility issubject to multiple effluent guidelines, the permit writer must apply each ofthe effluent guidelines inderiving the technology-based effluent limits for the particular facility. Ifall wastewaters regulated by effluent guidelines are combined prior to treatment and discharge to navigable waters, then the permit writer could simply combine the allowable pollutant loadings from each effluent guideline to arrive at a single technology-based effluent limit for the facility (i.e., a “building block” approach).
Circumstances will also arise when an effluent guideline for one subcategory regulates a different set of pollutants than the effluent guidelines applicable to another subcategory. Ifall regulated wastestreams are combined, there are two approaches to ensure proper application ofthe effluent guidelines:

. Ifone wastestream containing a pollutant that is not covered by an effluent guideline iscombined with another wastestream that has applicable effluent guidelines for the same pollutant, then the permit writers must use BPJ to establish atechnology-based effluent limit for the non-regulated wastewater (see Section 5.1.4).

. Ifone wastestream that does not contain a pollutant iscombined with another wastestream that has applicable effluent guidelines for the pollutant, the permit writer must ensure that the non-regulated wastestream does not dilute the regulated wastestream to the point where the pollutant is not analytically detectable. Ifthis circumstance occurs, then the permit writer will most likely need to establish internal outfalls, as allowed under 40 CFR 5122.45(h).
Effluent guidelines may also specify inconsistent limit expressions that will have to be adjusted. For example, effluent guidelines for one category (e.g., porcelain enameling) may contain limits with a daily maximum limit, while effluent guidelines for another category (e.g., electroplating) sets a4-day average limit for the same pollutant. Inthis case, both ELGs must be applied inthe permit. Ifthis situation arises, a permit writer has several alternatives such as:

iiEpA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -61Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent LImlt!s 

## EXHIBIT 5-4 OCPSFEffluent Limitations Guidelines

Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 214 1 Thursday, November 5. 1987 / Rules and Rrqularions 425-3 - (OCPSF) manufacturing facdltlea. lt applics.to pmcers wasIcwatcr discharges from these faciliUes. For the purposes of This regulation. OCPSF process wsstewater discbarges are defined as dischanjes from all eatablishmcnls or poruons of establishments that manufacture pmduccs or product groups listed in rhe applicability sections of this regulation. and are mcluded within the following U.S. Deperlment of Commerce Bureau of rhe Censur Standard industrial Classdicalion (SIC) major groups: (1) SIC 3M-Cyclic Crudes and Intcrmediales. Dyes, and Organic Pigments. (2) SIC 2&3+fndustrisl Organic Chemicals. not Elsewhere Clas~&d (3) SIC z&?l-Plartlc Malcnals. Synthetic Resins. and Nonvulcanrxablo Elastomers. (4)SIC 2823-CeIlulosic Man-Made Fibers. and [S)SIC WCSynthetic Organic Fibers. Except Cellulosie. The CKXW regulation does not applyto process was!swstsr discharges from the msnufachur of oganic chemical wmpaunds solely by extraction from plant end animal NW materials or by fsrmentetion processes. Ttle OCPBF regulation wwm au OCPSP products or proceues WhOlhW ornoI lhey am bated atfacibtlem where theOCFSPcovered operrtkma amaminor podoa ofandanalleq to theprim- production lcUviUea or l mrjor poruon oftheJctMMes. The OCPSF mguldon does not eppl~ to &schuge8fromoCPSFpmduct) pmcesa operetlons which are coved by the pmvlsions ofotbesutegoriul industry effluent UmiteUona guidek and sW if the wasWwater le treated in wmbiiation with the nonOUW hdwtrid atogory regulated wastewater. (Somepmduats at roduc4. grape aremumfactnmi byLidennt pmcesses and some proaeserwithslrgbt-opentiqJ wndltloo vuleuaMgive cuHeNnt pfodnclh EFA usu tlu term “pfoduct/pmcese” to mean diffsrenlvuirtloM ofthe- hub pmceas to munlfecture &famM products as well aa to menufuture the mrmproblu~-~) However, the OCPSF re&Ucut doee apply to tha prodoctlwd by this N&UOB Kthe facility rep&n
~~~s-~ wastewetm are treeled fn l separetr mdlllent systun atthefrcility or dischqed sepuetely to l municipJ treebnent system For example. same vertluUy lntmted petroleum refllleries Mb ph~~centlcal manufduren diachugo wastewaters from the production of synthetic organic chemical products that are specifically regulated under the Petrochemical and Integrated Subcategories of the Petroleum Refining Foml Source Category (40 CFR Part 419. Fubparts C and E) or the Chernlcal Synthesis Productr Subcategory of Lhe Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 439. Subpart CJ.The principles discussed in the preceding paragraph apply aa follows: The process wastewater discharges by petroleum mfineries and pharmaceutjcd manufacfuren from production of organic chemical products opeafically covered by 40 CFR Part 419 Subpan, C and Eand Part 439 Subpart C, respectively, that are treated in combination with other petroleum refinery or pharmaceuticel manufacturing wsstewatcr. mspectivrly. am not subject Lothe OCPSF regulation no matter what SIC code they use to report their pmducte. However. d the wasteweters from their OCPSP productioll are separately discharged to a POTW or ku ted in l sepuatr treebnent system and they mport their prodti (fmm these prousaes) under SICcode8ZW.Z8BXwUlZl.then discbugu fmm these mannfduring opamtione ue subject to regulatloo under theOCPSPregulation. regudlese ofwhether theOCPSFproducta em coveredby4oCFRPart4laSubperteC andEandFut43&SubpertC Today’8 OCPSF cat applies Loplestka mol

z iii%= procesaee when pluuc msln nuncfactnrm mold 01form (e.g.. extrude andpeueuM) aude lntemediate plestio maLerial far 1llipmMt off-sit.. -ma regukuM also applies totheextrusion offibem. Auua molding andforming pmcrsu othertlm thou duulhed aboveam p&k% R”dte$? ud StMduda (40cl@ puc4w fbblk mats requested relatiq touu mvmge ofo&treMucb and dewlopment fwiliur !5l~aoeocPsFmse~~ develwk pilot plant, teobnicek serda, and IdloNtory bench seek operaunas4Nllotmwredbytflo OCPSFwUoa However, wutewatsr frcm suchopueuwu wnducted iaCcnllNctbnvrith uub relrti toexisung OCPSF manuhtuhg opemlo~ atOCIW fedllUn lecowred by rheocpsp mgulMlwt becMM theseopueumu would mmt ukely genmto wutew~tr wall chulamlrua simiru touse commerdd qanufafdurlng

frcllityk Rsseucb

anddevelopment. pilot pla&. wbnial srrvke. andlaboratory operations which are unrelated to existing OCPSF

plant operations. even though conducted on-mite. arc not covered by the OCF’SF regula!ion because they may generate wastewater with characterirks dissimdar lo that from the commercial OCPSP manufacturing facility. Finally. as described in the folIowIng paragraphs, this mguiaUon does not covercertain production that has historically been mportsd to the Bureau of Census under a non-OCPSF SIC subgroup heading, even II such production could be reported under one of the five SIC code groups covered by today’s regulation The Settlement Agreemsnl (sse Section ILA) requues the Agency 10 establish regulations for the Organic Chtmicals Manufsctving SIC codes ~868 and 2864 and for Ihe Plastics and Synthetic MeterirIs manafacturing SIC code 282 SIC 282 includes the three codes covered by this regulation. Z&X. 2823. and 2824 as well ae SIC 2822 SyntheUc Rubber (Vulcenlzable Elastomers]. which is covered specifically in lhe SetUemsnt Agreement by another industrial category. Rubber Msnufactwing (49 CFR Pad 428). The Agency themfoon directsd its date coUwUoo efforts lo those facilltles that report mamfacturing lcUvities under SICwduMZl.2823.28242888and u#Q Resed 00 en assessment of this information andtbe integrated nature of thesyntheUo organic chemicals. plastics andsynthetic 5bere industry. Ihe Agency also defined the lPpliubilily of the OCFSF re&Uoo by listing the spec& prod&e and product groups thatpmvide the techaiul bares for the regulaum Sina many ofthe products may be qmrted under umre than one SIC code lwntbough(brJuroft~ m~nfwhuedwiththesame maction cheaistry or enit operations. the Agency considered extendfng the applicability oftlleocF%Fmgnhuoa(soFRzsom July 17,lW or 51 PR440W2 Dec8mber & 1988) to illclude OCPSP production reported ua&r the fouowtng SIC SUbqouP= 1.SIC ZSll(#buomeU.c hydrcarho~ manufactured fmm pwcbsedh5nery product* 2.SIC291183z-eliph~uc hydrocubona manufactured fmm pucbued dnuy product* 3.SIC28@tkyntbeUo ruin and rubher ldheeives (k&d@ only those syatbetlc reelna listed under both SIC 211914andSIC28~1that empolymerized far we or ado by adldvo IWZlUfWUWS).

62-4bEF%NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

. Place both limits inthe permit (i.e., both the daily maximum and 4-&y average)

. Apply the applicable effluent guidelines at internal outfalls [as allowed under 40 CFR $122.45(h)].

Example 1: Afacility with a newly constructed metal plating production line isadded to afacility with an existing metal plating production line. Wastewater from both ofthese lines iscommingled prior totreatment, treated, and then discharged. Inthis situation, the combination ofthe NSPS (forthe new line) and BAT/BCT standards (forthe older line) would beused toderive alimitation. Example 2: An integrated lamp maker conducts copper forming, aluminum forming, metal finishing, and porcelain enameling processes with wastewater combined prior totreatment and discharge. Inthis situation, the appropriate effluent guidelines forthese categories must beapplied to each waste stream and combined when developing limitations.


## Production/Flow-Based Limitations Most ELGs are expressed interms of allowable pollutant discharge per unit of production (or some other measure of production) or are based on wastewater flow rates. In general, production/flow-based standards are developed for industries that incorporate flow reduction practices, and EPA considers this inthe ELG development process. This methodology forces permittees to implement comparable measures to comply with the limitations. To determine permit limits, and in accordance with the requirements at40 CFR 9122.45(b), these standards are multiplied by a reasonable measure ofthe facility’s actual production/flow rate (i.e., not the design production or flow rate). Thus, itis necessary for the permit writer to determine the facility’s actual production or flow, based on information supplied by the facility inthe permit application.
The ideal situation for the application of ELGs iswhere production or flow is constant from day-to-day and month-to-month. Production or flow for the purposes of calculating the limitations would then be the average rate. In actuality, production or flow rates are not as constant as this ideal situation. They vary based on factors such as the market demand, maintenance, product changes, down times, breakdowns, and facility modifications. As such, the production or flow rate of afacility will vary with time.
HIT4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -63Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

To apply production/flow-based ELGs to afacility with varying production or flow rates, the permit writer should determine asingle estimate ofthe long-term average rate that isexpected to exist during the term ofthe permit being prepared. It is recommended that the permit writer establish this average from the past 5years of facility data. This single value isthen multiplied by the ELGs to obtain permit limits. Incertain instances, the permit writer may find that fewer than 5years of data may better represent conditions that are anticipated for the next 5years. This would be the case for afacility that has undergone major renovations that would impact production or flow; making use of data prior to this construction inappropriate to model future process options.
The objective in determining a production or flow estimate for afacility isto develop a single estimate ofthe long-term average production rate (in terms of mass of product per day or volume of process wastewater per day), which can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next term ofthe permit. The following example illustrates the proper application of production-based guidelines:

Example: Company Ahasproduced 331,000 tons, 301,500 tons, 361,500 tons, 332,000 tons, and 331,500 tons per year forthe previous 5years operating 255 days peryear. What would beareasonable measure of production for permitting purposes? Assuming that pollutant X has aneffluent limitation guideline of0.1 lbs/l,OOO Ibsforthe monthly average and 0.15 lbs/l,OOO Ibsforthe daily maximum, what would bethe resulting effluent limitations? Discussion: The use ofthe long-term average production (i.e., average production over past 5years =331,500 tons peryear) would bean appropriate and reasonable measure ofproduction, ifthis figure represents the actual production expected tooccur over the next term ofthe permit. Also, inevaluating these gross production figures, the number ofproduction days must beconsidered. Ifthe number ofproduction days peryear isnot comparable, the numbers must beconverted toproduction perday before they may be compared. To convert from the annual production ratetoaverage daily rate,theannual production rate isdivided bythe number ofproduction days peryear. To determine thenumber ofproduction days, the total number of normally scheduled nonproduction days are subtracted from the total days in ayear. IfCompany A normally has 255 production days peryear, the annual production rate of331,500 tons per year would yield an average daily rateof 1,300tons perday. Monthly average limit: 1,300 tons/day x2,000 lb&on x0.10tbs/l,OOOIbs =260 Ibs/day Daily maximum limit: 1.300 tons/day x2,000 Ibs/ton x0.15 Ibs/l,OOOIbs =390 Ib.s/day

64-&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits Inthe example above, the average production rate during the last 5years was used as the estimate of production. This average rate isappropriate when production is not expected to change significantly during the permit term. However, ifhistorical trends, market forces, or company plans indicate that adifferent level of production will prevail during the permit term, adifferent basis for estimating production should be used. 

## Tiered Permit Limits Ifproduction rates are expected to change significantly during the life of the permit, the permit writer can include alternate or tiered limits. These tiered limits would become effective when production exceeds athreshold value, such as during seasonal production variations. As ageneral rule ofthumb, up to a20 percent fluctuation in production iswithin the range of normal variability, while changes in production higher than 20 percent could warrant consideration of alternate limits. The major characteristics oftiered limits are best described by illustration and example.

Example: Plant Bproduced approximately 40tons perday ofproduct during spring and summer months (i.e., March through August) and 280 tons perday during fall and winter months during the previous 5years. Production during the fall and winter months aresignificantly higher than during the off-season and the permittee has made aplausible argument that production isexpected tocontinue atthat level. The guideline for pollutant X is0.08 Ibs/l ,000 Ibsforthe monthly average and 0.14 Ibs/l,OOO Ibsforthe daily maximum. What arethe tiered effluent limitations? Discussion: The first tier or lower limits would bebased on aproduction rate of40tons per day. These limits would apply between March and August. Monthly average limit: 40tons/day x2,000 tbs./tonx0.08 Ibs/l,OOO Ibs=6.4 Ibs/day Daily maximum limit: 40tons/day x2,000 lb&on x0.14 Ibs/l ,000 lbs = 11.2 Ibs/day The second tier orhigher limits would bebased on aproduction rateof280 tons perday. These limits would apply between September and February. Monthly average limit: 280 tons/day x2,000 lb&on x0.08 Ibs/l,OOOIbs=44.8 Ibs/day Daily maximum limit: 280 tons/day x2,000 Ibs/ton x0.14 Ibs/l,OOOIbs=78.4 Ibs/day

8EV4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -65Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Umlts

Tiered permits with alternate limits should be used only after careful consideration of production data and only when a substantial increase or decrease in production is likely to occur. Inthe example above, the lower limits would be in effect when production was at “low” levels. During periods ofsignificantly higher production, the higher limits would be in effect. Inaddition, alternate limits may also be appropriate inthe case of special processes or product lines. The thresholds, measures of production, and special reporting requirements must be detailed inthe permit. Special reporting requirements include provisions such as:

l The permittee notifying the permitting authority at least two business days prior to the month they expect to be operating at a higher level of production and the duration this level of production isexpected to continue

. The permittee reporting, inthe discharge monitoring report, the level of production and the limitation and standards applicable to that level. 

## MassVersusConcentration Limits The regulations at40 CFR $122.45(f)(l) require that all permit limits, standards, or prohibitions be expressed interms of mass units (e.g., pounds, kilograms, grams) except under the following conditions: 1) For pH, temperature, radiation, or other pollutants that cannot appropriately be addressed by mass limits; 2) When applicable standards and limitations are expressed interms of other units of measurement; or 3) Ifin establishing technology-based permit limitations on a case-by-case basis limitations based on mass are infeasible because the mass or pollutant cannot be related to a measure of production. The limitations, however, must ensure that dilution will not be used as asubstitute for treatment.
While the regulations require that limitations be expressed interms of mass, a provision is included at 40 CFR $122.45(f)(2) that allows that permit writer, at his or her discretion, to express limits inadditional units (e.g., concentration units). Where limits are expressed in more than one unit, the permittee must comply with both.
As provided by the regulations, the permit writer may determine that expressing limits in more than one unit is appropriate under certain circumstances. For example,
66-88R9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

expressing limitations interms of concentration as well as mass encourages the proper operation of atreatment facility at alltimes. Inthe absence of concentration limits, a permittee would be able to increase its effluent concentration (i.e., reduce its level oftreatment) during low flow periods and still meet its mass-based effluent limits. Concentration limits discourage the reduction intreatment efficiency during low flow periods, and require proper operation oftreatment units at alltimes.
The derivation ofconcentration limits should be based on evaluating historical monitoring data and using engineering judgment to be sure they are reasonable. In certain situations, the use ofconcentration limits may not be appropriate since they may discourage the use of innovative techniques, such as water conservation by the permittee. For example, ifafacility had a history of providing efficient treatment of its wastewater and also wished to practice water conservation, inclusion of concentration limits would not be appropriate (i.e., concentration limits would prohibit decreases in flow that would concurrently result in an increase in pollutant concentration). To summarize, the applicability of concentration limits should be acase-by-case determination based upon the professional judgment ofthe permit writer.
Itshould be noted that the long-term average flow should be used to calculate both the monthly average and daily maximum concentrations. The use ofthe longterm average flow is most appropriate for the calculation ofconcentration limits because itwill reflect the range of concentrations that could be expected in awell operated plant. The use ofthe maximum daily flow isnot appropriate to determine concentration limits from the mass limitations because itwill reduce the concentration below the value which could be expected in awell operated plant. Alternatively, use ofthe lowest flow value will increase the concentration limit to levels above what would be expected in awell operated plant. Example 1: An industrial facility (leather tanner) issubject to effluent limitations guidelines based on its rate of production. The permit writer calculates the applicable mass-based limits based onthe long-term production rate atthe facility and incorporates the mass limits in accordance with 40 CFR $122.45(f)(l). In reviewing the past inspection records forthe facility, the permit writer notes that while the facility is generally incompliance with its mass limits, the effluent flow and concentration vary widely. To ensure that the treatment unit isoperated properly atalltimes, the permit writer determines that concentrationbased limits are also appropriate. The permit writer consults the EPA Development Document for the leather tanning effluent limitations guidelines and bases the concentration-based limits onthe demonstrated performance ofthe treatment technology upon which the effluent guidelines were based. The concentration-based limits arethen incorporated inthe permit in accordance with 40 CFR $122.45(f)(2). QEM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -67Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

Example 2: For Company A,the mass limits for pollutant Xhave been set at260 Ibs/day and 390 Ibs/day monthly average and daily maximum, respectively. What arethe monthly average concentration limitations in milligrams per liter (mg/l) using both anaverage flow of0.9 mgd andthe lowflow of0.6 mgd? Note: 8.34 is aconversion factor with the units (Ibs/day)/(mgd)(mg/l). Discussion: Monthly average limit (based on average flow): 260 lbs/day/(8.34 x0.9 mgdl =35 mg/l Monthly average limit (based on lowflow): 260 lbs/dav/(8.34 x0.6 mad1=52rnti This isalmost 150percent more than the concentration during average flow! Indetermining applicable effluent concentration limitations, the monthly average and daily maximum mass limits divided bythe average flow will provide appropriate concentrations. Monthly average limit: 260 lbs/day/[8.34 x0.9 mqdl= 35mg/l Daily maximum limit: 390 lbs/dav/(8.34 x 0.9 mqdl =52mg/l


## 51.4 BestProfessionalJudgmentPermit Limits Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)-based limits are technology-based limits derived on acase-by-case basis for non-municipal (industrial) facilities. BPJ limits are established in cases where ELGs are not available for, or do not regulate, a particular pollutant of concern. BPJ is defined asthe highest quality technical opinion developed by a permit writer after consideration ofall reasonably available and pertinent data or information that forms the basis for the terms and conditions of a NPDES permit.
The authority for BPJ iscontained in Section 402(a)(l) ofthe CWA, which authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue a permit containing “such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to cat-v out the provisions ofthis Act” prior to taking the necessary implementing actions, such as the establishment of ELGs. During the first round of NPDES permits inthe early-to-mid-1970s, a majority of permits were based on the authority of Section 402(a)(l) ofthe CWA. These first round so-called best engineering judgment permits were drafted because effluent guidelines were not available for many industries. As effluent guidelines began to be promulgated, permit writers had to rely less on their best engineering judgment and could apply the ELGs in permits. As the implementation ofthe age oftoxic pollutant
68-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

control continues, the use of BPJ conditions in permits has again become more common. However, the statutory deadline for compliance with technology-based effluent limits (including BPJ-based pollutant limits) was March 31, 1989. Therefore, compliance schedules cannot be placed in permits to allow for extensions in meeting BPJ pollutant limits.
BPJ has proven to be avaluable tool for NPDES permit writers over the years. Because itis so broad in scope, BPJ allows the permit writer considerable flexibility in establishing permit terms and conditions. Inherent inthis flexibility, however, isthe burden on the permit writer to show that the BPJ is reasonable and based on sound engineering analysis. Ifthis evaluation of reasonableness does not exist, the BPJ condition isvulnerable to achallenge by the permittee. Therefore, the need for and derivation ofthe permit condition, and the basis for its establishment, should be clearly defined and documented. References used to determine the BPJ condition should be identified. In short, the rationale for a BPJ permit must be carefully drafted to withstand the scrutiny of not only the permittee, but also the public and, ultimately, an administrative law judge. 

## Establishment ofBPJPermit Limits The NPDES regulations in40 CFR 5125.3 state that permits developed on a case-by-case basis under Section 402(a)(l) ofthe CWA must consider (1) the appropriate technology for the category class of point sources ofwhich the applicant is a member, based on all available information, and (2) any unique factors relating to the applicant. To set BPJ limits, a permit writer must first determine a need for additional controls beyond existing ELGs. The need for additional controls may be the result ofthe facility not falling under any ofthe categories for which ELGs exist (e.g., barrel reclaimers, transportation equipment cleaning facilities, or industrial laundries) or discharging pollutants of concern that are not directly or indirectly addressed by the development ofthe ELGs (e.g., a pharmaceutical manufacturer or a petroleum refiner may discharge elevated levels of organic solvents for which category-specific guidelines do not exist). Itshould be noted that prior to establishing BPJ-based limits for a pollutant not regulated inan effluent guideline, the permit writer should ensure that the pollutant was not considered by EPA while developing the ELGs (i.e., BPJbased effluent limits are not required for pollutants that were considered by EPA for regulation under the effluent guidelines, but for which EPA determined that no ELG
&EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -69Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

was necessary). Information contained inthe appropriate “Development Document” should assist permit writers in making this determination.
In setting BPJ limitations, the permit writer must consider several specific factors as they appear in40 CFR 5125.3(d). These factors, which are enumerated below, are the same factors required to be considered by EPA inthe development of ELGs and, therefore, are often referred to as the Section 304(b) factors:

. For BPT requirements:

- The total cost of application oftechnology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application The age of equipment and facilities involved* The process employed* The engineering aspects ofthe application ofvarious types of control techniques* Process changes* Non-water quality environmental impact including energy requirements*

. For BCT requirements:

- All items inthe BPT requirements indicated by an asterisk (*) above

- The reasonableness ofthe relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction ineffluent and the effluent reduction benefits derived

- The comparison ofthe cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge of POTWs to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources

. For BAT requirements:

- All items inthe BPT requirements indicated by an asterisk (*) above

- The cost of achieving such effluent reduction.
A permit writer must consider each ofthese factors inestablishing BPJ-based conditions in permits. Since BPJ contains an element ofjudgment or educated opinion, a permit writer with the proper tools should be able to establish BPJ conditions in permits that are both technically sound and reasonable.
A technically sound and reasonable permit is not likely to be successfully challenged by the permittee or athird party. Inthis context, “technically sound permit conditions” means that the conditions are achievable with existing technology.
70 88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

“Reasonable” means that the conditions are achievable at a cost that the facility can afford. Historically, some ofthe other factors, such as age, process employed and non-water quality impacts have assumed lesser importance than the technical and economic feasibility evaluations. 

### BPJ Permitting Tools and References Permit writers can develop BPJ limits using one oftwo different methods. A permit writer can either transfer numerical limitations from an existing source such as from a similar NPDES permit or an existing ELG, or derive new numerical limitations. Numerous tools and references for BPJ permit writing exist. As one gains experience drafting BPJ permits, itiscommon practice to rely on some references more than others. Exhibit 5-5 lists references and provides some examples for selected BPJ data sources that have proven useful to permit writers over the years.
Most ofthe tools and references listed in Exhibit 5-5 can be used to derive new BPJ-based permit limits. They provide information related to the expected performance ofwastewater treatment systems. For example, the Treatability Manual and associated data base provides treatability information for over 1,400 pollutants. Information collected for use in developing effluent guidelines and standards can also provide treatability data for asignificant number of pollutants and for avariety oftypes of industrial wastewaters. The Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics ControP provides extensive information and guidance related to the statistical considerations when establishing effluent limits.
Since best management practices (BMPs) can also be used by permit writers as the basis for effluent limits, the Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices’ can be used by permit writers to identify potentially applicable BMPs that could be used for the facility to be permitted. In addition, Storm Water Management

4USEPA(1980). Treatability Manual, Volumes I-V. EPA-600/8-80-042a-e. OfficeofResearch and Development. ‘USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits. %SEPA (1993). Guidance Manual forDeveloping BestManagement Practices. (BMPs). EPA833-B-93-004. OfficeofWater. QEM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -71Chatier 5 Technology-Based Effluent Urn&s 

## EXHIBIT S-S BPJ Permitting Tools

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Abstracts ofIndustrial NPDES Permits Treatability Manual and DataBase NPDES BestManagement Practices Guidance Document Guidance Manual for Developing BestManagement Practices (BMPs). EPA833-B-93-004. (USEPA, 1993) OfficeofWaterand StormWaterManagement forIndustrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plansand BestManagement Practices. EPA832-R-92-006. (USEPA, 1992) OfficeofWater. Technical Support Document forthe Development ofWaterQuality-based PermitToxic Control Workbook forDetermining Economic Achievability for NPDESPermits National Environmental Investigation Center reportsonspecificfacilities Toxicity reduction evaluations forselected industries Industry experts within EPAHeadquarters, Regions, andStates Effluent guidelines development information CWASection 308questionnaires
- Screening andverification data Development documents
- Contractor’s reports - Proposed regulations ProjectOfficers PermitCompliance Systemdata Permit/compliance file information

- Previous NPDESapplication forms

- Discharge Monitoring Reports
- Compliance Inspection reports Other media permitfiles (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) permit applications and Spill Prevention Countermeasure andControl (SPCC)plans) Literature (e.g.,technical journals and books). for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices’ can be used by permit writers responsible for establishing BPJ permit limits for storm water discharges.

‘USEPA (1992). Storm WaterManagement forIndustrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention PlansandBest Management Practices. EPA832-R-92-006. OfficeofWater.
72-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits To assist permit writers in identifying other NPDES permits from which technology-based effluent limits can be transferred, EPA has developed the NPDES Industrial Permit Abstracts*. The abstracts are acompilation of NPDES permits issued by authorized State agencies and EPA Regional offices to avariety of nonmunicipal dischargers. The abstracts assist permit writers by providing rapid access to permit information in a standardized, cross-referenced and easy-to-read format.
As previously discussed, permit writers must consider the costs to comply when establishing BPJ permit limits for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. To assist permit writers in determining whether the estimated costs are reasonable for the facility to be permitted, adraft document, Workbook for Determining Economic Achievability for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pem?itsg, has been developed. This guidance document provides a step-by-step procedure for permit writers to determine the economic achievability of BPJ effluent limits. 

### BPJ Statistical Considerations The quality ofthe effluent from atreatment facility will normally vary over time. IfBOD, data for atypical treatment plant are plotted against time, the day-to-day variations of effluent concentrations can be seen. Some ofthis behavior can be described by constructing afrequency-concentration plot. From this plot, one can see that for most ofthe time, BOD, concentrations are near some average value. Any treatment system can be described using the mean concentration ofthe parameter of interest (i.e., the long-term average) and the variance (or coefficient ofvariation) and by assuming a particular statistical distribution (usually lognormal).
Permit limits are generally set atthe upper bounds of acceptable performance. As required at 40 CFR $122.45(d), two expressions of permit limits are required-an average monthly limit and a maximum daily limit. The use of average and maximum limits can vary depending on the effluent guidelines and water quality criteria that are consulted. Instantaneous maximums, daily averages and daily maximums, weekly averages, and monthly averages are all commonly used limitation expressions.

‘USEPA (1993). NPDES lndusfrial PermitAbsfracfs 7993. EPA-833/B-93-005. Office ofWater. ‘USEPA (1982). WorkbookforDetermining EconomicAchievability forNational Pollutant Discharge Eliminafion System Permits (DRAFT). Permits Division Prepared byPutnam, Wayes &Bartlett, Inc. &EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -73Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

Generally, the definitions are consistent with those set forth inthe Glossary ofthis manual.
Ifpermit limits are set too lenient relative to the long-term average, a discharger not complying with expected performance will not exceed the limits. Ifpermit limits are set too stringently, a discharger that iscomplying with expected performance may frequently exceed the limits. Itis important to note that statistical variability isalready built inwith respect to the ELGs, and the permit writer may not perform a separate evaluation inthose cases where a permit limitation isderived from a guideline.
When developing a BPJ limit, permit writers can use an approach consistent with EPA’s ELG statistical approach. Specifically, the daily maximum limitation can be calculated by multiplying the long-term average by a daily variability factor. The monthly maximum limitation can be calculated similarly except that the variability factor corresponds to the distribution of monthly averages instead of daily concentration measurements.
The daily variability factor isastatistical entity defined as the ratio ofthe estimated 99th percentile of a distribution of daily values divided by the mean ofthe distribution. Similarly, the monthly variability factor istypically defined as the estimated 95th percentile ofthe distribution of4-day averages divided by the mean of the monthly averages.
A modified delta-lognormal distribution can be fitto concentration data. Variability factors can then be computed for afacility distribution. The modified deltalognormal distribution models the data as a mixture of non-detect observations and measured values. This distribution isoften selected because the data for most analytes consists of a mixture of measured values and non-detects. The modified delta-lognormal distribution assumes that all non-detects have avalue equal to the detection limit and that the detected values folJow a lognormal distribution.
For more details on EPA’s use of statistical methods for developing ELGs, refer to Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the

74-8Ef% NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category” or Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control”. 

## 5.2 Application ofTechnology-Based Effluent Limitations for Municipal Dischargers The largest category of dischargers requiring individual NPDES permits is municipal POTWs. Similar to its approach for controlling the discharges from industrial sources, the 1972 CWA required POTWs to meet performance-based requirements based on available wastewater treatment technology. Section 301 ofthe CWA established a required performance level, referred to as “secondary treatment,” that all POTWs were required to meet by July 1, 1977.
More specifically, Section 301(b)(l)(B) ofthe CWA requires that EPA develop secondary treatment standards for POTWs as defined in Section 304(d)(l) ofthe Act. Based on this statutory requirement, EPA developed secondary treatment regulations which are specified in40 CFR Part 133. These technology-based regulations apply to all municipal wastewater treatment plants and identify the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment interms of BOD,, TSS, and pH. The regulations provide for special considerations regarding combined sewers, industrial wastes, waste stabilization ponds, and less concentrated influent wastewater for combined and separate sewers. Pursuant to Section 304(d)(4) ofthe CWA, the regulations also define “treatment equivalent to secondary treatment” and the alternative standards that apply to facilities meeting this definition. 

### 5.2.1 Secondary Treatment An important aspect of municipal wastewater isthat itis amenable to biological treatment. The biological treatment component of a municipal treatment plant is termed secondary treatment and is usually preceded by simple settling (primary treatment). In response to the CWA requirements, EPA evaluated performance data

“USEPA (1987). Development Document forEfiluenl Limitations Guidelines and Sfandards forthe Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category. Vol IandVol II. EPA440/i87/009. Office ofWater, Industrial Technology Division. “USEPA (1991). Technical Support DocumentforWaferQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. OfficeofWater Enforcement and Permits. 8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -75Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Llmits

for POTWs practicing secondary treatment and established performance standards based on its evaluation. Secondary treatment standards, therefore, are defined by the limitations provided in Exhibit 5-6.

Parameter 5-Day BOD TSS 

### PH Removal 

## EXHIBIT 5-6

Secondary Treatment Standards

30-Day Average 7-Day Average 

### 30mgll 

### 45mgfl 

### 30mg/l 

### 45mgil 6-9S.U.(instantaneous) - 85% BOD, andTSS -
According to 40 CFR $122.45(f), permit writers must apply these secondary treatment standards as mass-based limits using the design flow ofthe plant. Permit writers may also apply concentration-based effluent limitations for both 30-day and -/-day average limitations.
Example: A POTW with adesign flow rate of2.0 mgd would have permit limits based on secondary treatment standards asfollows: Mass-Based Limit =Design Flowx Concentration-Based Limit xConversion Factor BOD (30-day average) 2.0 mgdx 30mg/l x8.34 (Ib)(l)/(mg)(gal) =500 lb/da (7-day average) 2.0 mgdx45mg/l x8.34 (Ib)(l)/(mg)(gal) =737niz& TSS (30-day average) 2.0 mgdx 30mg/l x8.34 (Ib)(l)/(mg)(gal) =500 lb/da (7-day average) 2.0 mgdx45mg/l x8.34-$b)(l)/(mg)(gal) =d PH (instantaneous) 6-9 Removal(30-day average) 85% BOD, and TSS removal Where nitrification isoccurring inatreatment process, BOD, may not provide a reliable measure ofthe oxygen demand ofthe effluent. This is because nitrifying bacteria use a large amount of oxygen to consume unoxidized nitrogen and ammonia76-QEfY4NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effbent Llmits

nitrogen and convert these to oxidized nitrate. Inthese instances, basing permit limits on carbonaceous BOD, (CBOD,) instead of BOD, eliminates the impact of nitrification on effluent limits. EPA, therefore, allows for the use of CBOD, limits to minimize false indications of poor facility performance as a result of nitrogenous pollutants. Allowed under 40 CFR 9133.102(a)(4), the permit writer does have the discretion to set effluent Jimits for CBOD, in lieu of a BOD, limit. EPA has studied the use of a CBOD, limit and has concluded that a25 mg/l 30-day average and 40 mg/l 7-day average are effectively equivalent to the (30/45) BOD, limits.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC) laboratory tests can provide an accurate measure ofthe organic content ofwastewater in a shorter time frame than a BOD, test (i.e., several hours versus 5 days). Pursuant to 40 CFR 5133.104(b), the permit writer may substitute COD orTOC monitoring for BOD, when a long-term BOD:COD or BOD:TOC correlation has been demonstrated. Municipal wastewater treatment facilities are required to meet secondary treatment standards with few exceptions. The exceptions, identified at 40 CFR s133.103, include:

. Treatment works that receive flows from combined sewers during wet weather can qualify for alternative monthly percent removal limits during wet weather events.

. Treatment works that receive wastes from industrial categories that have ELGs for BOD, and TSS less stringent than the secondary treatment requirements in40 CFR Part 133, can qualify to have their BOD, and TSS limits adjusted upwards provided that: (1) the permitted discharge is less than would be permitted under the corresponding ELGs for direct discharges, and (2) the flow or loading of such pollutants introduced by the industrial category exceeds ten percent ofthe design flow or loading ofthe POTW.

. Treatment works that use waste stabilization ponds as the principal process for secondary treatment and whose operation and maintenance data indicate that the TSS values specified inthe equivalent-to-secondary regulations (discussed in Section 5.2.2) cannot be achieved, can qualify to have their minimum TSS levels adjusted upwards.

. Treatment works that receive less concentrated wastes from separate sewer systems can qualify to have their percent removal limit reduced or receive a mass loading limit provided that: (1) the facility can consistently meet its permit effluent concentration limits but cannot meet its percent
&a# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -77Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effbent Llmits
removal limits because of less concentrated effluent water, (2) the facility would have been required to meet significantly more stringent limitations than would otherwise be required bythe concentration-based standards, and (3) the less concentrated effluent is not the result of excessive infiltration/inflow (l/l). [Note: The determination of excessive l/l is based on (1) the “excessive l/l” definition in40 CFR §352005(b)(16) as the quantities of l/l which can be economically eliminated from asewer system as determined in acosteffectiveness analysis that compares the costs for correcting the l/l conditions to the total costs for transportation and treatment ofthe l/l and (2) l/l is not excessive ifthe total flow (i.e., wastewater plus l/l) to the POTW is less than 275 gallons per capita per day.]

. Treatment works receiving less concentrated wastes from combined sewers during dry weather can qualify to have their percent removal limit reduced or receive a mass loading limit provided that: (1) the facility can consistently meet its permit effluent concentration limits, but cannot meet its percent removal limits because of less concentrated effluent water, (2) the facility would have been required to meet significantly more stringent limitations than would otherwise be required by the concentration-based standards, and (3) the less concentrated influent wastewater does not result from either excessive infiltration or clear water industrial discharges during dry weather periods. Ifthe less concentrated influent isthe result of clear water industrial discharges, the treatment works must control such discharges pursuant to 40 CFR Part 403. [Note: The determination of excessive infiltration is based on (1) the “excessive infiltration” definition in40 CFR §352005(b)(28) as the quantity offlow which is less than 120 gallons per capita per day (domestic flow and infiltration) or the quantity of infiltration which cannot be economically and effectively eliminated from a sewer system as determined in acost effectiveness analysis and (2) the criterion that either 40 gallons per capita per day or 1,500 gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer may be used as the threshold value for that portion ofthe dry weather base flow attributed to infiltration.]
The NPDES regulations also provide for awaiver from secondary treatment requirements for discharges into marine waters. Inthese instances, the POTW must file a modification request for a marine discharge inaccordance with the requirements of40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G. More detail on marine variance requests is provided in Section 10.1.3.

78-8EFR NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effbent Llmits



### 5.2.2 Equivalent-to-Secondary Treatment Definition Following publication ofthe secondary treatment regulations, legislative history indicates that Congress was concerned that EPA had not “sanctioned” the use of certain biological treatment techniques that were effective in achieving significant reductions in BOD, and SS for secondary treatment. Therefore, to prevent unnecessary construction of costly new facilities, Congress included language inthe 1981 amendment to the Construction Grants statutes [Section 23 of Pub. L. 97-1471 that required EPA to provide allowances for alternative biological treatment technologies, such as atrickling filter or waste stabilization pond. In response to this requirement, definition of secondary treatment was modified on September 20, 1984, and June 3, 1985, and published inthe revised secondary treatment regulations contained in 40 CFR $133.105. These regulations allow alternative limits for facilities using trickling filters and waste stabilization ponds that meet the requirements for “equivalent to secondary treatment.” Several important concepts form the basis for this revision ofthe regulations:

l Certain classes of biological treatment facilities that are capable of achieving significant reductions in BOD, and TSS, but cannot consistently achieve secondary treatment, should be defined as separate and distinct from secondary treatment facilities.

l These facilities (equivalent-to-secondary) are cheaper and easier to operate and, therefore, are utilized by smaller communities. The provisions established by EPA should provide for continued use ofthese technologies where possible.

. The technology-based effluent limitation approach used to establish secondary treatment should be retained for equivalent-to-secondary treatment limits.

l Water quality must not be adversely affected by the application of equivalent-to-secondary treatment.

l Costly treatment plant upgrading or replacement should be avoided where equivalent facilities are operating sufficiently (e.g., achieving their original design performance levels).

. Regulations should address variations infacility performance due to geographic, climatic, or seasonal conditions.
In recognition ofthe above factors, the revisions to include a definition for equivalent-to-secondary treatment entail a change inthe traditional definition of secondary treatment for some POTWs. The capability and performance of an &EfW NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -79Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Urnits

individual plant isassessed, and limits are selected from a range of possible values. Although this process has been used for industrial facilities, the concept has generally not been applied to municipal permits (with the exception of interim permit limits).
To be eligible for equivalent-to-secondary limitations, a POTW must meet all of the following criteria:

. The principal treatment process must be either atrickling filter or waste stabilization pond (e.g., the largest percentage of BOD, and TSS removal is provided by the trickling filter or waste stabilization pond system).

l The effluent quality consistently achieved, despite proper operations and maintenance, is inexcess of 30 mg/l BOD, and TSS.

. Water quality is not adversely affected by the discharge.

. The treatment works as awhole provides significant biological treatment such that a minimum 65 percent reduction of BOD, isconsistently attained (30-day average).
Atreatment works that isoperating beyond its design hydraulic or organic loading limit is not considered an eligible facility. Ifoverloading or structural failure is causing poor performance, the SOlUtiOnto the prObl8m isconSttUCtiOn, not effluent limitations adjustment. There are several important implications ofthe equivalent-tosecondary treatment regulation as itapplies to specific municipal permitting issues. These issues are discussed beiow. 

### New Facility Limitations As specified in40 CFR 3133.1 OS(f),the permitting authority must set more stringent limits for new facilities ifan analysis of new plant performance shows that more stringent limits than the maximum equiv$ent-to-secondary limits (45/45) can be met. Recently, awide range of designs (e.g., solids contact channels, covers) have been used on trickling filters to improve their performance. This situation creates a performance dichotomy between old trickling filters and current state-of-the-art plants. The regulations recognize this disparity and encourage States to establish separate limits for new trickling filters based on current design practices inthe State. Where possible, an analysis of similar plants isthe preferred method for establishing permit limits where in-state data on new trickling filters are not available. Where no

80-8EY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effbent Urnits

performance data are available for determining new plant capability, literature values may be used. 

### Calculation of Permit Limits for Equivalent-to-Secondary Facilities In most cases, the permit limits for equivalent-to-secondary facilities will be selected from the 30 to 45 mg/l BOD, and TSS monthly average, and 45 to 65 mg/l BOD, and TSS weekly average range established by the regulation. Obviously, not all permits will be set atthe 45 mg/l monthly average and 65 mg/l Weekly average top of the range. The selection should be based on current performance data for the last two years of operation, at a minimum.
Where the plant performance data contain erroneous values because of plant upsets, or other situations not associated with poor operation or maintenance, an adjustment to the permit limit calculation may be made. The data for the month in question may be adjusted by dropping the erroneous daily value and recalculating the monthly average based on the remaining daily values. Another alternative isto analyze monthly average values for a period greater than two years and drop the monthly averages that are erroneous because of explained upset situations. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data should be used for calculations whenever possible., The DMRs must support the permit writer’s decision for an equivalent to secondary facility. Itshould be noted that the burden of proof for performance data and demonstration of proper operation and maintenance isthe responsibility ofthe municipality.
A trickling filter or lagoon will often be combined with another biological process (i.e., activated sludge process) in one treatment plant. Inthis case, ifthe trickling filter or lagoon qualifies for equivalent-to-secondary limits, the permit limits for the treatment plant can be derived by averaging the equivalent-to-secondary and conventional secondary treatment limits. To accomplish this, aflow-weighted average ofthe two effluent concentration limits should be calculated and applied as the outfall limitation for the permit. An alternative to this approach isthe use of internal waste stream limitations as authorized by 40 CFR 5122.45(h) for each biological process effluent line. The permit writer should encourage the continued use of existing trickling filters and lagoons, where appropriate, through the application of appropriate equivalent-tosecondary limits. However, the permit writer must be sure that these facilities are &EFYA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -81Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Urnits

capable of meeting the proposed effluent limits without causing water quality impacts before the permit limits can be adjusted. ifone cannot determine this, equivalent-tosecondary limits cannot be used inthe permit. 

### Alternative State Requirements (ASRs) The Alternative State Requirement (ASR) provision contained in40 CFR §133.105(d) ofthe regulation allows States the flexibility to set permit limits above the maximum levels of45 mg/l monthly average and 65 mg/l w88kly average BOD, and TSS from lagoons meeting certain requirements. Where lagoon suspended solids requirements are already above 45 mg/l inaccordance with 40 CFR §133.103(c), an ASR by the State is not necessary, unless higher limits are desired. To establish an ASR, the State must do two things:

. Identify a group of equivalent facilities that warrant different limits in exceedance ofthe equivalent-to-secondary values contained in40 CFR Part 133

. Justify the higher permit limitations for these facilities.
The group offacilities can be selected because ofclimatic or geographic location, the type oftechnology used, or any other supportable criteria. The analysis of plant data for the group must be statistically sound and should follow the methods presented in EPA’s Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control.” The ASR must be approved bythe EPA Region before permits can be written using the ASR values. The public notice of a proposed ASR isthe responsibility ofthe State. EPA has published approved ASRs in49 FR 37005, September 20, 1984. Exhibit 5-7 isasummary ofthe ASRs for 8aCh State. 

### Carbonaceous BOD Limits EPA recognizes that the carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) test can provide accurate information on treatment plant performance in many cases. However, the use of CBOD in permits should be focused on facilities with known or suspected nitrification

“USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA50512-90-001. OfficeofWater Enforcement and Permits.
82-BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effbent Urnits

problems such as underloaded facilities and new facilities with long detention times. These conditions favor nitrifying bacteria and can lead to erroneous BOD, test results.
The equivalent-to-secondary treatment regulations In40 CFR §133.105(e) allow optional use of aCBOD limit and test procedure in municipal permits as a substitute for the standard BOD,. This substitution is atthe discretion ofthe permitting authority. To establish a CBOD limit for an equivalent-to-secondary treatment facility, the permitting authority must have data to show that nitrifying bacteria inthe treatment plant are causing the BOD, test results to be significantly impacted. Extensive BODJCBOD comparisons should not be necessary because the actual CBOD limit will be established by (1) determining the BOD, limit that can be met through proper operation and maintenance, and (2) ifthe BOD, limit is between 30 and 45 mg/l, setting the CBOD limit 5 units lower (e.g., between 25 and 40 mg/l).
The EPA-approved test procedures In40 CFR Part 136 now contain a CBOD (nitrogen inhibited) test procedure. The CBOD test can be specified for any municipal permit. However, the BODJCBOD relationship (5 mg/l difference) may not apply outside the 30 to 45 mg/l BOD, range. IfCBOD limits will be used for equivalent-tosecondary permits above 45 mg/l (BOD,), a BOD&BOD relationship should be established during the ASR process. Where parallel BODJCBOD test data are available, they must be submitted to the EPA Regional office with the proposed ASRs for approval. For permit limits below 30 mg/l BOD, the corresponding CBOD limit should be developed during an aavanced treatment review or from the wasteload allocation. The use of CBOD inthe permit is not a substitute for nitrogen or ammonia limits ifin-stream nitrification or ammonia toxicity iscreating a problem.

8B4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -83Chapter 5 Technology-Based Effluent Limita 

## EXHIBIT 5-7 State-Specific ASRs

84-XfM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 5 Technology-Based Effbent Urnits 

## EXHIBIT 5-7 State-Specific ASRs (continued) Alternate TSSLimit Location Nebraska 80 North Carolina 90 North Dakota North andEastof Missouri River 60 South andWestof Missouri River 100 Nevada New Hampshire 90 45 New Jersey None New Mexico 90 New York 70 Ohio 65 Oklahoma ! 90 I Oregon EastofCascadeMountains Westof CascadeMountains Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South I-w&~ Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Eastof Blue Ridge Mountains West of Blue Ridge Mountains Eastslopecounties: Loudoun, Fauquier, Rappahannock, Madison, Green,Albemarle, Nelson, Amherst, Bedford, Franklin, Patrick. Virgin Islands Washington WestVirginia Wisconsin Wyoming Trust Territories andN. Marianas Source: 49 FR37005: 9/20/84 85 SO None None 45 90 120 100 90 None 55 60 78 Case-by-baseapplication of60/78 limits.

None 75 80 80 loo None

&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -85

# Chapter 6

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

Permit writers must consider the impact of every proposed surface water discharge on the quality ofthe receiving water. Water quality goals for awater body are defined by State water quality standards. A permit writer may find, by analyzing the effect of a discharge on the receiving water, that technology-based permit limits are not sufficiently stringent to meet these water quality standards. In such cases, the CWA and EPA regulations require development of more stringent, water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL) designed to ensure that water quality standards are met. In order to develop effective WQBELs, permit writers must be familiar with State water quality standards methods for predicting water quality impacts from discharges, and procedures for establishing WQBELs. This chapter provides basic information on these subjects. For more detailed information on water quality-based permitting, refer to the Technical Support Document for Water Quaky-Based Toxics Control (TSD),13 or equivalent State or regional procedures.

13USEPA(1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits.
EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -87Chapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

6.1 Overview of Water Quality Standards WQBELs involve a site-specific evaluation of the discharge and its effect on the receiving water. A WQBEL is designed to protect the quality of the receiving water by ensuring that State water quality standards are met. To understand how to develop WQBELs, the permit writer must understand State water quality standards and the water quality goals they define.
Section 303(c) of the CWA requires every State to develop water quality standards applicable to all water bodies or segments of water bodies that lie within the State. Once standards are developed, EPA must approve or disapprove them. Water quality standards should (1) include provisions for restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of State waters, (2) provide, wherever attainable, water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water (“fishable/swimmable”), and (3) consider the use and value of State waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture and industrial purposes, and navigation. Currently, States are required to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and revise them as necessary. When writing a permit, the permit writer must use the most current State water quality standards. For more information regarding procedures for developing water quality standards, refer to EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 and the Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition.14
Under §510 of the CWA, States may develop water quality standards more stringent than required by the Water Quality Standards Regulation. Also, EPA reviews and approves or disapproves State-adopted water quality standards. EPA’s review is to ensure that the State water quality standards meet the requirements of the CWA and the Water Quality Standards Regulation. EPA may promulgate a new or revised standard for a State where necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA.

14USEPA(1994). WaterQuality Standards Handbook: Second Edition. EPA823-B-94-005a. Office ofWater.
88 - EPANPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent limits



### 61.1 Components ofWater Quality Standards Water quality standards are composed ofthree parts:

. Use classifications

. Numeric and/or narrative water quality criteria

. Antidegradation policy.
Each ofthese three components isdescribed below. 

### UseClassification The first part of a State’s water quality standard isaclassification system for water bodies based on the expected beneficial uses ofthose water bodies. The CWA describes various uses ofwaters that are considered desirable and should be protected. These uses include public water supply, recreation, and propagation offish and wildlife. The States are free to designate more specific uses (e.g., cold water aquatic life, agricultural), or to designate uses not mentioned inthe CWA, with the exception ofwaste transport and assimilation which is not an acceptable designated use (see 40 CFR 5131.10(a)). Designated uses should support the “fishable/ swimmable” goal of Section 101(a)(2) ofthe CWA where such uses are attainable. A State must perform a use attainability analysis under 40 CFR $131.10(j) where it: (1) does not designate a“fishable/swimmable” use for awater; (2) wishes to remove a “fishable/swimmable” designated use; or (3) wishes to adopt subcategories of a designated “fishable/swimmable” use that would require less stringent criteria. The use attainability analysis isa structured scientific assessment ofthe factors affecting the attainment of a use. The analysis may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors as described in40 CFR 9131.10(g). 

### Water Quality Criteria The second part of aState’s water quality standard isthe water quality criteria deemed necessary to support the designated uses of each water body. Section 303(a-c) ofthe CWA requires States to adopt criteria sufficient to protect designated uses for State waters. These criteria may be numeric or narrative. The CWA requires States to adopt numeric criteria for certain toxic pollutants where they are necessary to protect designated uses. EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation encourages 8ElY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -89Chapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent Urn&s

States to adopt both numeric and narrative water quality criteria. See Section 6.1.2, Establishing Water Quality Criteria, ofthis manual for additional information on the development of numeric and narrative criteria. 

### Antidegradation Policy The third part ofa State’s water quality standard isthe State’s antidegradation policy. Each State is required to adopt an antidegradation policy consistent with EPA’s antidegradation regulations (40 CFR 9131.12) and to identify the methods itwill use for implementing the policy. Antidegradation policies provide three tiers of protection from degradation ofwater quality:

l Tier l-Protects existing uses and provides the absolute floor ofwater quality for all waters ofthe United States. Existing instream water uses are those uses that were attained on or after November 28, 1975, the date of EPA’s first Water Quality Standards Regulation, or uses for which existing water quality issuitable unless prevented by physical problems such as substrate orflow.

l Tier 2-Protects the level ofwater quality necessary to support propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation inand on the water inwaters that are currently of higher quality than required to support these uses. Before water quality inTier 2waters can be lowered, there must be an antidegradation review consisting of: (1) afinding that itis necessary to accommodate important economical or social development inthe area where the waters are located; (2) full satisfaction of all intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions; and (3) assurance that the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for point sources and best management practices for nonpoint sources are achieved. Furthermore, water quality may not be lowered to less than the level necessary to fully protect the “fishable/swimmable” uses and other existing uses.

l Tier 3-Protects the quality of outstanding national resources, such as waters of national and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance. There may be no new or increased discharges to these waters and no new or increased discharges to tributaries ofthese waters that would result in lower water quality (with the exception of some limited activities that result intemporary and short-term changes inwater quality).

90-8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent limits

Additional information on water quality standards is available inthe Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edifion.‘5 

### 6.1.2 Establishing Water Quality Criteria Water quality criteria set ambient levels of individual pollutants or parameters, or describe conditions of awater body that, ifmet, will generally protect the designated use ofthe water. Water quality criteria are developed to protect aquatic life and human health, and, in some cases, wildlife from the deleterious effects of pollutants. Section 304(a) ofthe CWA directs EPA to publish water quality criteria guidance to assist States in developing water quality standards. EPA criteria or guidance consists ofthree components:

l Magnitude-The level of pollutant (or pollutant parameter), generally expressed as aconcentration, that isallowable. 0 Duration-The period oftime (averaging period) over which the instream concentration is averaged for comparison with criteria concentrations.

l Frequency-l-low often criteria can be exceeded.
EPA’s efforts on criteria development have been focused on the 65 pollutants listed in Section 307(a) ofthe CWA. Some ofthe 65 pollutants on the list are actually families or classes of organic compounds consisting of many individual chemicals. EPA translated this list into a new list of 129 priority toxic pollutants. Subsequently, two volatile chemicals and one water unstable chemical were removed from the list so that the present list contains 126 priority toxic pollutants. Criteria for the priority toxic pollutants that EPA has developed to date are contained in individual criteria documents and summarized in adocument entitled Qualify Criteria for Water 7986,16 more commonly referred to as the Gold Book.

“USEPA (1994). Water QuaMy Sfandards Handbook: Second Edition. EPA 823-B-94-005a. Office of Water. “%lSEPA (1986). Quality Criteria forWater, 1986. EPA-440/5-86-001. Office ofWater Regulations andStandards. 88R4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -91Chapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent lfmltr



### Numeric Criteria Numeric water quality criteria are values expressed as levels, constituent concentrations, toxicity units (see discussion ofwhole effluent toxicity below), or numbers deemed necessary to protect designated uses. These criteria often form the basis for NPDES WQBELs. They also can be useful inassessing and managing nonpoint sources. In 1987, Congress increased the emphasis ofthe CWA on numeric criteria for toxic pollutants by enacting Section 303(c)(2)(B) ofthe act. This section requires States to adopt numeric criteria for the 126 priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has developed criteria guidance and where the discharge or presence ofthe pollutant could reasonably be expected to interfere with the designated uses of a water body. States may establish numeric criteria using EPA criteria guidance, modified to reflect site specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods.
EPA criteria for the protection ofaquatic fifeaddress both short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) effects on both freshwater and saltwater species. The following example shows the current EPA criteria for cadmium.

Example: Aquatic Life The procedures described inthe GuideMinesforDeriving NUm8IiCsiNational WaterQuality Criten’aforthe Protection ofAquatic Organisms and Their Usesindicate that, except possibly where alocally important species isvery sensitive, freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses should notbeaffected unacceptably ifthe 4-da2 average concentration (in ug/L) ofcadmium does notexceed the numerical value given by e10.78~1nm neu\~3.4 

### Imorethan once every 3years onthe average and ifthe one-hour average concentration (in ug/L) does not exceed the numerical value given bye(’‘za[‘n’hardneu~~3~sa) more than once every 3years onthe average. Forexample, athardnesses of50, 100,and200 mg/LasCaCO, the4-day average concentrations ofcadmium are0.66, 1.l,and 2.0ug/L, respectively, and the l-hour average concentrations are 1.8,3.9and 8.6 ~$1. Ifbrooktrout, brown trout, and striped bass are assensitive as some data indicate, they might notbeprotected bythis criterion.

Human health criteria are designed to protect people from exposure resulting from consumption of water and fish or other aquatic life (e.g., mussels, crayfish). The following example contains EPA’s human health criteria for CadMiUM.

92-8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-Basxf Effluent Umfts

Example: Human Health The ambient water quality criterion forcadmium isrecommended tobe identical tothe existing drinking water standard which is 10ug/L. Analysis ofthetoxic effects data resulted in acalculated level which is protective of human health against the ingestion ofcontaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms. The calculated valueiscomparable tothe present standard. Forthis reason aselective criterion based onexposure solely from consumption of6.5grams ofaquatic organisms was notderived. 

### Narrative Criteria All States have adopted narrative criteria to supplement numeric criteria for toxicants. Narrative criteria are statements that describe the desired water quality goal. Examples of narrative criteria are provided below. Narrative criteria can be the basis for limiting specific pollutants where the State has no numeric criteria for those pollutants or they can be used to limit toxicity where the toxicity cannot be traced to a specific pollutant. EPA’s Water Quality Standards Regulation requires States to develop implementation procedures for narrative criteria that address all mechanisms to be used by the State to ensure that narrative criteria are attained.

Example: Narrative criteria can bestatements, requiring thatdischarges be“free from toxics intoxic amounts” or “free ofobjectionable color, odor, taste, and turbidity.”


### 6.1.3 Future Directions for Water Quality Standards The water quality standards program isconstantly evolving. New scientific, regulatory, and policy developments affect the nature ofthe program. For example, three new areas where criteria are being developed include biological, sediment, and wildlife criteria.
0 Biological Criteria-EPA isdeveloping numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting unimpaired waters of adesignated aquatic life use. The biological communities inthese waters represent the best attainable condition for the organisms. According to EPA policy, States should develop and implement biological criteria intheir water quality standards.

l Sediment Criteria-Sediment contamination can result from the deposition of toxicants over long periods oftime and isalso responsible for water
Qe# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -93Chapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent lfmfts quality impacts when these toxicants are released back into the water column. EPA has proposed sediment criteria for five organic chemicals (phenanthrene, fluoranthene, dieldrin, acenaphthene, and endrin) (59 FR 2652; l/18/94). EPA also isdeveloping sediment criteria for metals, and has begun development of implementation guidance for sediment criteria. 0 Wildlife Criteria-EPA is undertaking an initiative to develop numeric wildlife criteria to establish ambient concentrations of certain chemicals to protect mammals and birds from adverse impacts due to consumption of food and/or water containing those chemicals. 

## 6.2 Approaches to Implementing Water Quality Standards The control oftoxic discharges towaters ofthe United States inan important objective ofthe CWA. To effectively accomplish this objective, EPA recommends an integrated approach to implementing water quality standards and developing WQBELs. This integrated approach includes three elements: achemical-specific approach, a whole effluent toxicity (WET) approach, and a biological criteria or bioassessment approach. Each ofthe three approaches is briefly described below. Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the capabilities and limitations ofeach approach. 

### 6.2.1 Chemical-Specific Approach The chemical-specific approach uses the chemical-specific criteria for protection of aquatic life, human health, and wildlife adopted into a State’s water quality standards. The criteria are used as the basis to analyze an effluent, decide which chemicals need controls, and derive permit limits that will control those chemicals to the extent necessary to achieve water quality standards inthe receiving water. Chemical-specific WQBELs in NPDES permits involve a site-specific evaluation ofthe discharge and itseffect upon the receiving water. This approach allows for the control of individual chemicals before awater quality impact has occurred orto assist in returning water quality to a level that will meet designated uses. 

### 6.2.2 Whole EMuent Toxicity (WET) Approach WET, the second approach to water quality-based toxics control, protects the receiving water quality from the aggregate toxic effect of a mixture of pollutants inthe effluent. WET tests measure the degree of response of exposed aquatic test organisms to an effluent The WET approach is useful for complex effluents where it
94-8EW NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent limits 

## EXHIBIT 6-l Components ofanIntegrated Approach to Water Quality-Based Toxics Control Cmtrol Approach Capabuities Limitations chemical-Specific - Human health protection - Does not consider all toxics

- Complete toxicology present

- Straightforward treatabiiity - Bioavailability not measured

- Fateunderstood - Interactions of mixtures (e.g.,

- Lessexpensive testing if additivity) unaccounted for only afew toxicants are - Complete testing canbeexpensive present - Direct biological impairment not

- Prevents impacts measured Whole effluent - Aggregate toxicity - No direct human health protection :oxicity - Unknown toxicants - Incomplete toxicology (few addressed speciesmay betested)

- Bioavailability measured - No direct treatment

- Accurate toxicology - No persistency or sediment

- Prevents impacts coverage
- Conditions in ambient may be different
- Incomplete knowledge of causative toxicant Bioassessments - Measures actual receiving - Critical flow effects not always water effects assessed

- Historical trend analysis - Difficult to interpret impacts

- Assessesquality above - Causeof impact not identified standards - No differentiation of sources
- Total effect of all sources, including unknown sources - Impact hasalready occurred

- No direct human health protection
may be infeasible to identify and regulate alltoxic pollutants inthe discharge orwhere chemical-specific pollutant limits are set, but synergistic effects are suspected to be problematic. The WET approach allows the permit writer to be protective of the narrative “no toxics intoxic amounts” criterion that isapplicable to all waters ofthe United States and implement numeric criteria for toxicity (see the discussion below on acute and chronic toxicity).
There are two types of WET tests: acute and chronic. An acute toxicity test is usually conducted over ashort time period (e.g., 48 hours) and the endpoint measured is mortality. The endpoint for an acute test isoften expressed as an LC50
BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -95Chapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

(i.e., the concentration of effluent that islethal to 50 percent ofthe exposed test organisms). A chronic toxicity test is usually conducted over a longer period oftime (e.g., 7 days) and the endpoint measured is mortality and sublethal effects, such as changes in reproduction and growth. The endpoint isoften expressed as the no observed effect concentration (NOEC), the lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC), or the inhibition concentration (IC). The NOEC isthe highest concentration of effluent at which no adverse effects are observed on the aquatic test organisms. The LOEC isthe lowest concentration of effluent that causes observable adverse effects in exposed test organisms. The IC isan estimate ofthe effluent concentration that would cause a given percent reduction in a biological measurement ofthe test organisms.
To express criteria, facilitate modeling, and express permit limits, EPA recommends that toxicity be expressed interms of “toxic units.” Atoxic unit (TU) is merely the inverse ofthe sample fraction. Toxicity, expressed as percent sample, is divided into 100 to obtain toxic units.

Example: Ifachronic test resultisaNOEC of25 percent effluent, that result can beexpressed as 100/25 or4.0 chronic toxic units (4.0TUc); Ifan acute test result isa LC,, of60 percent, that result can also beexpressed as 100/60 or 1.7acute toxic units (1.7TUa).

Itis important to distinguish acute toxic units (TUa) from chronic toxic units (TUc). The difference between TUa and TUc can be likened to the difference between miles and kilometers. Thus, to compare aTUa and aTUc, aconversion factor called an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR), must be developed. The ACR is a conversion factor that changes TUa into equivalent TUc. Ifdata are insufficient to calculate an ACR (i.e., less than 10 sets ofWET data), EPA recommends a default value ofACR=lO. Where sufficient data are available, the ACR should be calculated as the mean ofthe individual ACRs for each pair of acute and chronic WET test data. The following examples show: (1) how the ACR converts TUa into TUc; (2) how to calculate an ACR from existing data; and (3) how the ACR allows permit writers to compare TUa and TUc.

96-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-Based Effluent Llmk

Acute to Chronic Ratio Formulas:

. Bydefinition:

. Thus:

. Substituting:

Example 1: ACR = Acute Endpoint = L&O Chronic Endpoint NOEC
TUa=100 Go TUG=&

LC, =E NOEC=z

L% ACR=- = TUc

(1OOflUa)

_ NOEC (1

OOjTUc) TUa

Given: LC,,=28% NOEC=10% Example 2: ACR - LC, 28% =2a -=- . NOEC 10%

Given: TUc=10.0 TUa= 3.6
Example: Toxicity datafromPOlW DischargeMonitoring Reports(C.dubia):

LCSO NOEC (% Effluent) % Effluent) 62 10 18 10 68 25 61 10 63 25 70 25 17 5 35 10 35 10 35 25 47 10 Mean z T;

l Calculatedvalue. Acute to Chronic Ratio’ (ACR) 6.2 1.8 2.7 6.1 2.5 2.8 3.4 3.5 3.5 1.4 4.7 G

88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -97Chapter 6 Water QualitylBaatd Effluent Llmfts

Example: Where: Wasteload Allocation (WLA) = toxicity level indischarge that will meet state water quality criteria (calculated value) AcuteWLA = 1.5TUa Chronic WLA = 4.9TUc Because TUc and TUa are indifferent units, we can usethe ACR toconvertTUa toTUc assuming anACR = 10(default value).

TUa xACR = TUa,c [where “TUa,c” =acutetoxicity eXpreSSedinchronic toxicity units] 1.5TUax 10 = 15TUa,c 4.9 TUc < 15TUa,c: therefore the chronic WLA (4.9TUc) is more stringent than the acute WLA (1.5TUa); thus 4.9TUc is used todevelop the permit limit. The ACR allows ustodirectly compare the chronic WLA of4.9TUc with the acute WLA of 1.5TUa. Using the ACR of 10,wecanexpress 1.5TUa inchronic toxicity units as 15TUa,c. Wesee that 4.9 TUc is less than 15TUa,c, (theacuteWIA 8Xpr8SSedin chronic toxicity units}. The more stringent value should beused fordeveloping permit limits. Thus, the appropriate requirement that would meet both acute and chronic criteria fortoxicity is4.9TUc. 

### 6.2.3 Biological Criteria or Biological AssessmentApproach The biological criteria or biological assessment approach isthe third approach to water quality-based toxics control. This approach is used to assess the overall biological integrity of an aquatic community. Biological criteria, or “biocriteria,” are numerical values or narrative statements that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of agiven designated aquatic life use. When incorporated into State water quality standards, biological criteria and aquatic life use designations serve as direct, legal endpoints for determining aquatic life use attainment. Once biocriteria are developed, the biological condition of awater body may be assessed through a biological assessment, or “bioassessment.” A bioassessment isan evaluation ofthe biological condition of awater-body using biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota insurface waters. A biological survey, or “biosurvey,” consists of collecting, processing, and analyzing representative portions of a resident aquatic community to determine the community structure and function. The results of biosurveys may be compared to the reference water body to determine ifthe biocriteria forthe designated use ofthe water body are

96-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-Bad Effluent Limits

being met. EPA issued guidance on this approach in Nological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.”
To be fully protective ofwater quality, EPA developed the concept of “independent application” to characterize the relationship ofthe three approaches to implementing water quality standards. Independent application says that the results of one approach should not be used to contradict or overrule the results ofthe others. Independent application recognizes that each approach has unique as well as overlapping attributes, sensitivities, and program applications; thus, no single approach for detecting impact should be considered uniformly superior to any other approach. For example, the inability to detect receiving water impacts using a biosurvey alone is insufficient evidence to waive or relax a permit limit established using either the chemical-specific or WET method. 

## 6.3 Determining ‘theNeedfor WQBELs Once the applicable designated uses and water quality criteria for awater body are determined, the permit writer must ensure that dischargers do not cause exceedences ofthese criteria. If,after technology-based limits are applied, the permit writer projects that a point source discharger may exceed an applicable criterion, a WQBEL must be imposed. EPA regulations at40 CFR $122.44(d) require that all effluents be characterized by the permitting authority to determine the need for WQBELs inthe permit. 

### 6.3.1 Defining “Reasonable Potential” to Exceed Applicable Criteria In deciding whether or not WQBELs are needed to protect water quality, a permit writer must determine whether the discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion of numeric or narrative water quality criteria. EPA’s regulation at40 CFR 5122.44(d)(l) establishes the basis for determining ifthere is an excursion ofthe numeric or narrative water quality criteria. At a minimum, the permit writer must make this determination at each permit reissuance and must develop WQBELs as necessary to control the discharge of pollutants.
“USEPA (1990). Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance forSurface Waters. EPA-4401 5-91-004. Office ofScience andTechnology. 8EfY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -99Chapter 6 Water Quality-Bad Effluent Limits



### Reasonable Potential and Numeric Criteria When conducting an effluent characterization to determine ifWQBELs are needed based on chemical-specific numeric criteria inthe water quality standards, the permit writer projects the receiving water concentration of pollutants contained inthe effluent once that effluent enters the receiving water. Ifthe projected concentration exceeds the applicable numeric water quality criterion for a specific pollutant, there is reasonable potential that the discharge may cause or contribute to an excursion above the applicable water quality standards and the permit writer must develop aWQBEL.
Ifa State has numeric criteria for WET, the permit writer projects the toxicity once the effluent enters the receiving water. The permit writer then compares the toxicity ofthe receiving water to the applicable State water quality criteria. Ifthe projected toxicity exceeds the applicable numeric water quality criterion for WET, there is reasonable potential that the discharge may cause or contribute to an excursion above the applicable water quality standards and the permit writer must develop a WQBEL for WET. 

### Reasonable Potential and Narrative Criteria Ifthe permit writer determines that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in-stream excursion above a narrative criterion, the permit must contain effluent limits for WET unless the permit writer demonstrates that chemical-specific limits for the effluent are sufficient to attain and maintain applicable numeric narrative water quality criteria.
The permit writer must investigate effluents for the presence of specific chemicals for which the State has not adopted numeric criteria, but which may be contributing to an excursion above a narrative criterion. Insuch cases, permit writers must establish limits using one ofthree options: (1) use EPA’s national criteria, (2) develop their own criteria, or (3) control the pollutant through the use of an indicator.

100-BEfM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-8ased Effluent Llmtts



### General Considerations When determining whether WQBELs are needed in a permit, the permit writer is required to consider, at a minimum: (1) existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution; (2) the variability ofthe pollutant or pollutant parameter inthe effluent; (3) the sensitivity ofthe species to toxicity testing; and (4) where appropriate, the dilution ofthe effluent inthe receiving water (40 CFR §122.44(d)(ii)). The permit writer also must consider whether technology-based limits are sufficient to maintain State water quality standards. Finally, the permit writer should consider other available data and information pertaining to the discharger (e.g., compliance history, in-stream survey data, dilution, data from similar facilities) in addition to effluent monitoring data to assist in making an informed reasonable potential determination. 

### 6.3.2 Determining Reasonable Potential With Effluent Monitoring Data When characterizing an effluent for the need for aWQBEL, the permit writer should use any available effluent monitoring data as well as other information pertaining to the discharge (e.g., type of industry, compliance history, stream surveys) as the basis for a decision. The permit writer may already have effluent data available from previous monitoring, or he or she may decide to require the permittee to generate effluent monitoring data prior to permit issuance or as a condition ofthe issued permit. EPA recommends monitoring data be generated prior to permit limit development for the following reasons: (1) the presence or absence of a pollutant can be more clearly established or refuted; and (2) effluent variability can be more clearly defined. Data collection should begin far enough in advance of permit development to allow sufficient time for conducting toxicity tests and chemical analyses.
The permit writer can use the available effluent data and awater quality model to perform a reasonable potential analysis. The mass balance equation, presented in Exhibit 6-2, is a simple water quality model that can be used for this analysis. The permit writer would use the maximum observed effluent concentration, or a statistically projected worst-case value, to calculate a projected in-stream concentration, under critical stream conditions. The permit writer would then compare the projected receiving water concentration to the applicable water quality criteria to determine whether awater quality-based effluent limit is needed.

8EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 101Chapter 6 Water Quality-8ased Effluent Llmtts 

## EXHIBIT 6-2 Basic Mass Balance Water Quality Equation

Q&d +QsC,=Q&, Qd=waste discharge flow in million gallons perday (mgd) orcubic feetpersecond (cfs) Cd =pollutant concentration inwaste discharge in milligrams per liter (mg/l) Q, =background streamflow in mgd orcfsabovepoint of discharge C, = background in-stream pollutant concentration in mg/l Q, = resultant in-stream flow, after discharge in mgd orcfs C, = resultant in-stream pollutant concentration in mg/l inthestream reach (after complete mixing occurs)
All toxic effects testing and exposure assessment parameters, for both effluent toxicity and individual chemicals, have some degree of uncertainty associated with them. The more limited the amount of data, the larger the uncertainty. To better characterize the effects of effluent variability and reduce uncertainty inthe process of deciding whether to require an effluent limit EPA has developed a statistical approach to determining reasonable potential. This approach isdescribed in detail in Chapter 3 ofthe Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control” (hereafter referred to as the “TSD”). The statistical approach combines knowledge of effluent variability with the uncertainty due to a limited number of data to project an estimated maximum concentration for the effluent. This projected maximum concentration, after considering dilution, can then be compared to an appropriate water quality criterion to determine the need for an effluent limit. Example: Q, = Available dilution from upstream river flow = 1.2cfs

Q, = Discharge flow = 0.31 cfs c, = Upstream river concentration = 0.8 mg/l c, = Statistically projected maximum discharge concentration = 2.0mg/l C, = Receiving water concentration Water Quality Criterion = 1.0 mg/l
c =QdCd+Qscs = (0.31cfs) (2.0mg/l) + (1.2cfs) (OJmg/l) r Qr (1.2cfs) + (0.31cfs)

Discussion: C, = 1.05 mg/l

Since the downstream concentration (C,)exceeds the water quality criterion, there isa reasonable potential forwater quality standards to beexceeded.

‘*USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits. 102-&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-8aatd Effluent Llmtts

Example:

c, = Receiving water (downstream) concentration (intoxic units) C, = Receiving water background concentration =0TU Qs = Receiving water flow =23.6cfs(foracute protection) 70.9 cfs (the 7QlO for chronic protection) = Discharge flow 2 = Discharge TUa =7.06 cfs =2.49 TUa TUc =6.25 TUc Q, = Downstream flow =Q, +Q, Water quality criterion for acute protection =0.3TUa Water quality criterion for chronic protection = 1.0TUc C, = (2m49)v*06) + (‘1 (23*6) =6.57 TUa for acute toxicity

(7.06 +23.6)

c = (6.25) (7.06) +(0) (70.9) r (7.06 +70.9) =0.57 TUc for chronic toxicity

Discussion: Since the downstream concentration (C,)exceeds the water quality criterion for acute

toxicity (0.3TUa), there is reasonable potential forwater quality standards fortoxicity to be exceeded. 

### 6.3.3 Determining Reasonable Potential Without Effluent Monitoring Data Ifthe permit writer so chooses, or ifthe circumstances dictate, he or she may decide to develop and impose aWQBEL without facility-specific effluent monitoring data. WQBELs can be set for asingle parameter or WET based on the available dilution and the water quality criterion or State standard inthe absence offaciiityspecific effluent monitoring data. Injustifying a limit, the more information the permit writer can acquire to support the limit, the better will be the regulatory authority’s position in defending the limit, ifnecessary. Types of information that the permit writer may find useful include: type of industry or POTW, existing data on toxic pollutants, history of compliance problems and toxic impact, and type of receiving water and designated use. The permit writer must provide adequate justification for the limit in the permit development rationale or inthe permit fact sheet. The permit writer may

86% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 103Chapter 6 Water QualiCy-&wed Effluent Llmfts

well find that he or she would benefit from the collection of effluent monitoring data prior to establishing the limit. The TSD” provides guidance on collecting monitoring data for establishing WQBELs.
Ifthe permit writer, after evaluating all available information on the effluent, in the absence of effluent monitoring data, is not able to decide whether the discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above a numeric or narrative criterion for WET or for individual toxicants, the permit writer should require WET or chemical-specific testing to gather further data. In such cases, the permit writer can require the monitoring prior to permit issuance, ifsufficient time exists, or may require the testing as acondition ofthe issued (or reissued) permit. The permit writer could then include aclause inthe permit that would allow the permitting authority to reopen the permit and impose an effluent limit ifthe effluent testing establishes that there is reasonable potential that the discharge will cause or contribute to an excursion above awater quality criterion. 

## 6.4 Exposure Assessment and Wasteload Allocation Before calculating aWQBEL, the permit writer must first determine the point source’s wasteload allocation (WLA). The WLA isthe fraction of atotal maximum daity load (TMDL) for the water body that isassigned to the point source. This section discusses the concepts ofthe TMDL and WLA, describes methods for assessing exposure to pollutants inthe receiving water, and explains how WLAs for a point source are calculated. 

### 6.4.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads ATMDL is a determination ofthe amount of a pollutant, or property of a pollutant, from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to awater quality-limited water body. Any loading above this capacity risks violating water quality standards. TMDLs can be expressed interms of chemical mass per unit oftime, by toxicity, or by other appropriate measures. Exhibit 6-3 provides agraphic illustration of allocations under aTMDL.

“USEPA (1991). Technical Supper?Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. OfficeofWater Enforcement and Permits.
104-&Et# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Quality-8aatd Effluent Llmtts 

## EXHIBIT 6-3 Components ofaTMDL

Wasteload allocations (WLAs) areassigned toeach point source discharge Load allocations (LAS)are assigned to nonpoint sources WLAs and LASare established sothat predicted receiving water concentrations do notexceed water quality criteria

Section 303(d) ofthe CWA established the TMDL process to provide for more stringent water quality-based controls when technology-based controls are inadequate to achieve State water quality standards, These statutory requirements were codified at 40 CFR 5130.7. When implemented accordingly, the TMDL process can broaden the opportunity for public comment, expedite water quality-based NPDES permitting, and lead to technically sound and legally defensible decisions for attaining and maintaining water quality standards. Also, the TMDL process provides a mechanism for integrating point and nonpoint pollutant sources into one evaluation.
Based on the TMDL, point source WLAs and nonpoint source load allocations (LAS) are established so that predicted receiving water concentrations do not exceed water quality criteria. TMDLs, WLAs, and LAS are established at levels necessary to attain and maintain the applicable narrative and numerical water quality standards, with seasonal variations and a margin of safety that account for any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between point source and nonpoint source loadings and water quality.
In some cases, the waterbody segment under consideration may contain only one point source discharger, Inthis situation, States typically develop a simple TMDL

86% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 105Chapter 6 Water QurlRy-Bamd Effluant Lfmik

that considers the point source and background contributions of a pollutant from other sources. For other waterbody segments, aTMDL may not be available at the time the permit must be issued, or aTMDL may not be required at all. In such cases, permitting authorities have historically developed asingle WLA for a point source discharging to the waterbody segment. Both simple TMDLs and single WLAs commonly rely on mass balance and simplified water quality models which assume steady-state, or constant conditions for variables such as background pollutant concentrations and stream flow. EPA has encouraged States to develop TMDLs for more difficult water quality problems involving multiple point and nonpoint source pollutant loads. These types ofTMDLs require complex water quality models capable of simulating rainfall events and analyzing cumulative chemical fate and transport. Simple, steady-state modeling and more complex, dynamic modeling are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.4.3 below.
EPA is supporting innovative approaches linked to developing and implementing TMDLs, such as watershed-based trading. Trading means that pollution sources can sell or barter their ability to reduce pollution with other sources that are unable to reduce their pollutant loads as economically. TMDLs provide a basis for successful trading because they can be adapted to incorporate trades, and because the data and analyses generated in TMDLs allow water quality managers to better understand and predict the effects of proposed trades. The success oftrading will rely on reasonable assurance that aTMDL will be implemented.
Further guidance related to establishing TMDLs can be found inChapter 4 of EPA’s TSD2* and inthe Guidance fur Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process.2’ 

### 6.4.2 Calculating Wasteload Allocations Before calculating aWQBEL, the permit writer must first know the WLA for the point source involved. As discussed above, the WLA isthe fraction of a receiving

?JSEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Conlrol. EPA505/2-90-001. OfficeofWater Enforcement and Permits. 2’USEPA1991,Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA-440/4-91-0001. OfficeofWater.
106-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water QurMty-Bamd Effluant Lhnfts

water’s TMDL that is allocated to one of its existing orfuture point sources of pollution. The appropriate WLA is determined through an exposure assessment. Water quality models are the primary tools utilized by regulatory agencies in conducting an exposure assessment to determine aWLA. Models establish aquantitative relationship between awaste’s load and its impact on water quality. Modeling is usually conducted by aspecialized work group within the regulatory agency; however, itis important that the permit writer understand this process. The permit writer will use the end result ofthe model, aWLA, to derive aWQBEL. 

### 6.4.3 Selecting aWater Quality Model Determining which model isappropriate for a given discharge and receiving water is based upon whether or not there is rapid and complete mixing ofthe effluent with the receiving water. Ifthe receiving water does not have rapid and complete mixing, a mixing zone assessment is recommended, Ifthere is rapid and complete mixing near the discharge point-,acomplete mix assessment involving fate and transport models is recommended. 

### Mixing Zone Assessment In incompletely mixed discharge receiving water situations, mixing zone modeling is appropriate. Mixing zones are areas where an effluent undergoes initial dilution and are extended to cover secondary mixing inthe ambient water body. A mixing zone is an allocated impact zone inthe receiving water where acute and chronic water quaiity criteria can be exceeded as long as toxic conditions are prevented and the designated use ofthe water is not impaired as a result ofthe mixing zone.
The CWA allows mixing zones atthe discretion ofthe State. Individual State policy determines whether or not a mixing zone isallowed. EPA recommends that States make a definitive statement intheir water quality standards on whether or not mixing zones are allowed and how they will be defined. EPA provides guidance on when to require a mixing zone and how to determine the boundaries and size of a mixing zone.

0Ei# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 107Chapter 6 Water QurMty-Bamd Effluant Lhnfts

In general, there are two stages of mixing: discharge-induced and ambient induced. The first stage iscontrolled by discharge jet momentum and buoyancy ofthe effluent. This stage generally covers most ofthe mixing zone allowed by State water quality standards. Beyond the point of discharge-induced mixing, mixing iscontrolled by ambient turbulence. Both discharge-induced mixing and ambient-induced mixing models are available for mixing zone analyses. The Water Quality Sfandards Hand.booti2 and Chapter 4 ofthe TSD23 provide further guidance on mixing zones and how to conduct a mixing zone analysis. 

### Complete Mix Assessment Ifthe distance from the outfall to complete mixing is insignificant, then mixing zone modeling is not necessary. For completely mixed discharge receiving water situations, there are two major types offate and transport water quality models: steady-state and dynamic. Model selection depends on the characteristics ofthe receiving water, the availability of effluent data, and the level of sophistication desired. The minimum data required for model input include receiving water flow, effluent flow, effluent concentrations, and background pollutant concentrations.


### a. Steady-State Modeling A steady-state model requires single, constant inputs for effluent flow, effluent concentration, background receiving water concentration, receiving water flow, and meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature). Ifonly afew pollutant or effluent toxicity measurements are available or ifadaily receiving water flow record is not available, steady-state assessments should be used. Steady-state models calculate WLAs at critical conditions that are usually combinations of worst-case assumptions of receiving water flow, effluent pollutant concentrations, and environmental effects. For example, asteady-state model for ammonia considers the maximum effluent discharge to occur on the day of the lowest river flow, highest upstream concentration, highest pH, and highest temperature. WLAs and permit limits derived from asteady-state model will be

“USEPA (1994). WaferQuality Standards Handbook: Second Edition. EPA823-B-94-005a. OfficeofWater. 23USEPA(1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. OfficeofWater Enforcement and Permits.
108- BB# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Chapter 6 Water CkuMty-Bamd Effiuent Urn&s

protective of water quality standards at the critical conditions and for all environmental conditions less than critical. Steady-state modeling involves the application of a mass balance equation that allows the analyst to equate the mass of pollutants upstream of a given point (generally at a pollutant discharge, tributary stream or lateral inflow) to the mass of pollutants downstream after complete mixing. The basic formula for the mass balance model was presented as Exhibit 6-2. This model assumes that pollutants are conservative and additive, and considers only dilution as a mitigating factor affecting the pollutant concentration in-stream. The formula can be modified to account for factors such as degradation or sorption ofthe pollutant (in addition to dilution) where appropriate and feasible. A number of steady-state toxicant fate and transport models that consider factors affecting in-stream potlutant concentrations other than dilution are available and are discussed in Chapter 4 ofthe TSD24. The simple mass balance equation can be rearranged as follows to determine the downstream effect of a particular discharge concentration: 

### Q,C, +QC, =c&C,

c = Q,C,+QsCs r Qr The equation can be further rearranged to determine the WLA necessary to achieve a given in-stream concentration (CJ, such as awater quality criterion:

Example: Assume astream has acritical design Rowof 1.2cfs and abackground zinc concentration of0.80 mgIl. The State water quality criterion for zinc is 1.Omg/l orless. The WIA for adischarge ofzinc with afiow of200,000 gpd is (Note: 200,000 gpd =0.3t cfs]: 

# I C, =[(1.0)(0.31+1.2)-(0.8)(1.2))/0.31 = (1.51-0.96)/0.31 =0.55/0.31 = 1.77 m@ I

“USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality43ased Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits. 08# NPDES Permlt Writers’ 

### Manual-109Chapter 6 Water ChWty-&md Effiuent LMts

Most States have adopted both acute and chronic numeric criteria for at least some pollutants. As such, steady-state WLA models should be used to calculate the allowable effluent load that will meet criteria at the appropriate design up-stream flow for those criteria. Each State specifies the appropriate design up-stream flow at which its water quality criteria should be applied. EPA recommends a design upstream flow for acute aquatic life criteria at the 1QlO (l-day low flow over a lo-year period) and for chronic aquatic life criteria at the 7QlO (7-day low flow over a lo-year period). EPA also recommends that the receiving water harmonic mean flow be used as the design upstream flow for human health protection. Once a permit writer has aWLA for each applicable criterion, those WLAs must be translated into long term average effluent concentrations and, subsequently, maximum daily and average monthly permit limits. This process is discussed in Section 6.5 - Permit Limit Derivation. Calculating WLAs and the associated long-term average effluent concentrations for each applicable criteria and using the most stringent long-term average effluent concentration to calculate permit limits will ensure that the permit limits are protective ofall applicable criteria.
b. 

### Dynamic Modeling Ifadequate receiving water flow and effluent concentration data are available to estimate frequency distributions ofeffluent concentrations, one of the dynamic modeling techniques could be used to develop WLAs. Ingeneral, dynamic models account for the daily variations of and relationships between flow, effluent, and environmental conditions, and therefore, directly determine the actual probability that awater quality standard will be exceeded. The three dynamic modeling techniques recommended by EPA include: continuous simulation, Monte Carlo simulation, and tognormal probability modeling.

l Continuous simulation isafate and transport modeling technique that uses time series input data to predict receiving water quality concentrations inthe same chronological order as that ofthe input variables.

. Monte Carlo simulation isa modeling technique that involves random selection of sets of input data for use in repetitive model runs in order to predict the probability distributions of receiving water quality concentrations.

l Lognormal probabilistic dilution isa modeling technique that calculates the probability distribution of receiving water quality concentrations from the lognormal probability distributions ofthe input variables.

110 -8B4 NPDES Permit Wrlters’ ManualChapter 6 Water Puaiity-Bd Effiuant Lh#s

These methods calculate a probability distribution for receiving water concentrations rather than a single, worst-case concentration based on critical conditions. Thus, they determine the entire effluent concentration frequency distribution required to produce the desired frequency of criteria compliance. Chapter 4 ofthe TSD25describes steady-state and dynamic models in detail and includes specific model recommendations for toxicity and individual toxic pollutants for each type of receiving water-rivers, lakes, and estuaries. In addition, EPA has issued detailed guidelines on the use offate and transport models of individual toxicants. Specific references for these models may be found inthe Watershed Tools Directory -A Collection of Watershed Tools, available through the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division ofthe Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds [available through the internet at http://www.epa.gov]. These manuals describe in detail the transport and transformation processes involved inwater quality modeling. 

## 6.5 Permit Limit Derivation WLAs are the outputs ofwater quality models, and the requirements of aWLA must be translated into a permit limit. The goal ofthe permit writer isto derive permit limits that are enforceable, adequately account for effluent variability, consider available receiving water dilution, protect against acute and chronic impacts, account for compliance monitoring sampling frequency, and assure attainment ofthe WLA and water quality standards. To accomplish these objectives, EPA recommends that permitting authorities use the statistical permit limit derivation procedure discussed in Chapter 5 ofthe TSDz6 with outputs from either steady-state or dynamic water quality models. EPA believes this procedure will result inthe most defensible, enforceable, and protective WQBELs for both specific chemicals and WET.

25USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document for Water Qualify-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits. *‘jibid. 8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 111Chapter 6 

### WaterPuaUty-Boweb Effiuant Llm#s 

### 6.51 Expression of Permit Limits The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 5122.45(d) require that all permit limits be expressed, unless impracticable, as both average monthly limits (AMLs) and maximum daily limits (MDLs) for all discharges other than POTWs, and as average weekly limits (AWLS) and AMLs for POTWs. The MDL isthe highest allowable discharge measured during acalendar day or 24-hour period representing acalendar day. The AML isthe highest allowable value for the average of daily discharges obtained over acalendar month. The AWL isthe highest allowable value for the average of daily discharges obtained over a calendar week.
Technical Note In lieu ofanAWL for POTWs, EPA recommends establishing an MDL (oramaximum test result for chronic toxicity) fortoxic pollutants and pollutant parameters inwater quality permitting. This is appropriate for at least two reasons. First, the basis forthe 7-day average for POTWs derives from the secondary treatment requirements. This basis isnot related tothe need forassuring achievement of water quality standards. Second, a7-day average, which could comprise uptoseven ormore daily samples, could average out peaktoxic concentrations and therefore the discharge’s potential for causing acute toxic effects would be missed. A MDL, which ismeasured byagrab sample, would be toxicologically protective ofpotential acute toxicity impacts.
The objective isto establish permit limits that result inthe effluent meeting the WLA under normal operating conditions virtually allthe time. It isnot possible to guarantee, through permit limits, that aWLA will never be exceeded. It ispossible, however, using the recommended permit limit derivation procedures to account for extreme values and establish low probabilities ofexceedance ofthe WLA in conformance with the duration and frequency requirements ofthe water quality standards.
Since effluents are variable, and permit limits are developed based on a low probability of exceedance, permit limits should take effluent variability into consideration and ensure that the requisite loading from the WLA is not exceeded under normal conditions. Ineffect, the limits must force treatment plant performance levels that, after considering acceptable effluent variability, will only have a low statistical probability of exceeding the WLA and will achieve the desired loadings. 

### 6.52 Limits Derived from Steady-State Model Outputs A permit limit derived from asteady-state model output depends on the type of WLA. WLAs based on protecting aquatic lifewill have two results: acute and chronic
112-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualChapter 6 Water Puaiity-Bd Effiuant Lh#s

requirements because State water quality standards generally provide both 

### acuteand chronic protection for aquatic life. Incontrast, WLAs based on protecting human health will have only a chronic requirement. Ineither case, these WLA outputs need to be translated into maximum daily limits and average monthly limits. The acute and chronic WLA can be achieved for either specific chemicals or WET by using the following methodology to derive permit limits:

. Calculate atreatment performance level (frequency distribution described 

### bya long-term average or LTA and a coefficient ofvariation or CV) that will allow the effluent td meet the WLA requirements modeled (there will be a calculation for the acute WLA requirement and acalculation for the chronic WLA requirement)

. For WET only, convert the acute WLA into an equivalent chronic WLA by multiplying the acute WLA by an acute-to-chronic ratjo (ACR) (e.g., 2.0 TUa x 10 =20 TUc where ACR =TUc/TUa = 10)

. Derive permit limits directly from whichever performance level is more protective.
EPA has developed tables (see Tables 5-l and 5-2 in Chapter 5 ofthe TSD2’) that permit writers can use to quickly determine the values necessary to translate a WLA into a permit limit. In addition, some permit authorities have developed their own computer programs to compute WQBELs from the appropriate inputs.
Some State water quality criteria and the corresponding WLAs are reported 

### as a single value from which to define an acceptable level of effluent quality. An example of such a requirement is“copper concentration must not exceed 0.75 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in stream.” Steady state analyses assume that the effluent isconstant and that the WLA value will never be exceeded. This assumption presents a problem in deriving permit limits because permit limits need to consider effluent variability. Where there ison\y one water quality criterion and only one WLA, permit limits can be developed using the following procedure:

l Consider the single WLA to be the chronic WLA

*‘USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. OfficeofWater Enforcement and Permits. 8ER4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 113Chaptar 6 Water Puaiity-Bd Effiuant Lh#s

l Calculate atreatment performance level (an LTA and CV) that will allow the effluent to meet the WLA requirement modeled

. Derive maximum daily and average monthly permit limits based on the calculated LTA and CV. 

### 6.5.3 Limits Derived from Dynamic Model Outputs The least ambiguous and most exact way that aWLA for specific chemicals or whole effluent toxicity can be specified isthrough the use of dynamic modeling from which the wasteload allocation isexpressed as a required effluent performance in terms ofthe LTA and CV ofthe daily values. When aWLA isexpressed as such, there is no confusion about assumptions used and the translation to permit limits. A permit writer can readily design permit limits to achieve the WLA objectives. Once the WLA and corresponding LTA and CV are determined, the permit limit derivation procedure found inChapter 5ofthe TSD28 may be used to develop effluent limits both for specific chemicals and for whole effluent toxicity. 

### 6.5.4 Special Considerations Permits Protecting Human Health Developing permit limits for pollutants affecting human health issomewhat different from setting limits for other pollutants because the exposure period is generally longer than one month, and can be up to 70 years, and the average exposure rather than the maximum exposure isusually of concern. Because compliance with permit limits is normally determined on adaily or monthly basis, itis necessary to set human health permit limits that meet a given WLA for every month. Ifthe procedures for aquatic life protection were used for developing permit limits for human health pollutants, both the MDL and AML would exceed the WLA necessary to meet the required criteria concentrations. In addition, the statistical derivation procedure is not applicable to exposure periods over 30 days. Therefore, the recommended approach for setting WQBELs for human health protection isto set the average monthly limit equal to the WLA and calculate the maximum daily limit based on effluent variability and the number of samples per month using the statistical procedures described in Chapter 5 ofthe TSD2’.

?JSEPA (1991). Technical Support Document forWaterQuality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits. “ibid.
114 -liiB3I NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Chapter 7

Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Having developed the effluent limits for a municipal or industrial discharger, the permit writer’s next step isto establish monitoring and reporting requirements. Requiring the permittee to routinely self-monitor its discharge and to report the analytical results of such monitoring provides the permitting authority with the information necessary to evaluate discharge characteristics and compliance status. Periodic monitoring and reporting also serve to remind the permittee of itscompliance responsibilities and provides feedback regarding the performance ofthe treatment facility(s) operated by the permittee. Permit writers should be aware of and concerned with the potential problems that may occur in aself-monitoring program such as improper sample collection procedures, poor analytical techniques, and poor or improper report preparation and documentation. To prevent or minimize these problems, the permit writer should clearly detail monitoring and reporting requirements inthe permit.

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 115Monitoring and Reporting Conditions Chapter 7
The monitoring and reporting conditions section of a NPDES individual permit should contain specific requirements for the following items:

• Sampling location • Sample collection method • Monitoring frequencies • Analytical methods • Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Several factors should be considered in determining the specific requirements to be imposed. Basic factors that may affect sampling location, sampling method, and sampling frequency are:

• Applicability of “effluent limitations guidelines” (ELG) • Effluent and process variability • Effect of flow and/or pollutant, load on the receiving water • Characteristics of pollutants discharged • Permittee compliance history.
These factors must be carefully considered by the permit writer, as any error could lead to inaccurate compliance determination, misapplication of national ELGs, and/or misapplication of State water quality standards.
The following sections provide an overview of the considerations involved in determining appropriate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, and describe how to properly incorporate the requirements in a NPDES permit.

7.1 Establishing Monitoring Conditions The NPDES Program is structured such that facilities that discharge pollutants in waters of the United States are required to periodically evaluate compliance with the effluent limitations established in their permit and provide the results to the permitting authority. In addition, NPDES permits can require the permittee to monitor for additional parameters or processes not directly linked to the effluent discharge such as storm water, combined sewer overflows, municipal sludge, and/or treatment plant influent. This section describes the regulatory requirements and authorities for

116 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonitoring and Reportlng Conditions 

### Chapter 7

monitoring conditions, and describes how these conditions can be incorporated in NPDES permits.
The regulations requiring the establishment of monitoring and reporting conditions in NPDES permits are found in40 CFR $122.44(i) and 40 CFR 5122.48. Section 122.44(i) requires permittees to monitor pollutant mass (or other applicable unit of measure), effluent volume, provide other measurements (as appropriate), and to utilize the test methods established at40 CFR 9136. Section 122.41(i) also establishes that NPDES permittees (with certain specific exceptions) must monitor for all limited pollutants and report data at least once per year.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 5122.48 state that all permits must specify requirements concerning the proper use, maintenance, and installation of monitoring equipment or methods (including biological monitoring methods when appropriate). All permits must also specify the required monitoring including the type, intervals, and frequency sufficient to yield data that are representative ofthe activity. The following sections focus on ensuring that permit monitoring conditions properly address these regulatory requirements. 

### 7.1.1 Monitoring Location The NPDES regulations do not specify the exact location to be used for monitoring. The permit writer is responsible for determining the most appropriate monitoring location and explicitly specifying this inthe permit. Ultimately, the permittee is responsible for providing a safe and accessible sampling point that is representative ofthe discharge (40 CFR 3122.41(j)(l)). Specifying the appropriate monitoring location ina NPDES permit iscritical to producing valid compliance data. Important factors to consider in selecting a monitoring location include:

. The wastewater flow should be measurable

. The location should be easily and safeiy accessible

l The sample must be representative ofthe effluent during the time period that is monitored.

4bER9NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 117Monktorlng and Reporting Conditions Chapter 7

Technical Note When establishing monitoring locations fordetermining NPDES permit compliance, permit writers must select locations that are representative ofthe expected wastewater discharge. Locations should be established where the wastewater iswell mixed, such asnear aparshall flume oratalocation in asewer with hydraulic turbulence. Weirs tend toenhance the settling ofsolids immediately upstream and the accumulation offloating oil orgrease immediately downstream. Such locations should beavoided for sampling. The most logical monitoring point for an effluent isjust prior to discharge to the receiving water. This is particularly true for ensuring compliance with water qualitybased effluent limits (WQBELs). However, there are instances when the permit writer may need to specify alternate monitoring locations in a permit.
One typical instance that necessitates establishing an alternative monitoring location occurs when afacility combines a variety of process and non-process wastewaters prior to discharge through acommon outfall structure. Under certain circumstances, when avariety ofwastewaters are combined, requiring monitoring only atthe final combined outfall may not be appropriate. To address this situation, 40 CFR 5122.45(h) allows permit writers to establish monitoring locations at internal outfalls. Examples of situations that may require designation of internal monitoring locations include:

l To ensure compliance with effluent limitations guidelines and standards (at non-municipal facilities)-When non-process wastewaters dilute process wastewaters regulated under effluent guidelines, monitoring the combined discharge may not accurately depict whether the facility is complying with the effluent guidelines. Under these circumstances, the permit writer may consider requiring monitoring for compliance with technology-based effluent limits (based on application of effluent guidelines) before the process wastewater iscombined with the other wastewaters.

l To ensure compliance with secondary treatment standards (for POTWs only)-Certain POTWs include treatment processes that are ancillary to the secondary treatment process that may impact their ability to monitor for compliance with secondary treatment standards. Under these circumstances, the permit writer may consider requiring monitoring for compliance with secondary treatment standards just after the secondary treatment process (e.g., require monitoring ofeffluent just after secondary clarification) before any additional treatment processes.

l To allow detection of a pollutant-Instances may arise where the combination of process and non-process wastewaters result in dilution of a pollutant of concern that will not be detectable using approved analytical
118 -06% NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonitoring and Reporting Conditions 

### Chapter 7 methods. Establishing monitoring for the pollutant at an internal location will enable characterization ofthe pollutant prior to dilution with other wastewaters.
When establishing internal monitoring points, permit writers need to consider the location ofwastewater treatment units within the facility. This is particularly true when establishing internal monitoring locations for determining compliance with technology-based effluent limits. Afacility will most likely not be able to comply with technology-based effluent limits ifthe permit writer establishes the monitoring location prior to the wastewater treatment unit.
Permit writers may also need to require monitoring of influent to the wastewater treatment units for certain facilities. lnfluent monitoring must be required for POTWs to ensure compliance with the 85 percent removal condition ofthe secondary treatment standards. lnfluent monitoring at non-POTWs may also be desired to determine influent characteristics, and ifadditional information related to the performance ofthe wastewater treatment unit is needed.
Exhibit 7-1 provides examples of how to specify sampling locations in a permit either by narrative or diagram. 

### 7.1.2 Monitoring Frequency The frequency for monitoring pollutants should be determined on acase-bycase basis, and decisions for setting the frequency should be set forth inthe fact sheet. Some States have their own recommended sampling guidelines that can help a permit writer determine an appropriate sampling frequency. The intent isto establish afrequency of monitoring that will detect most events of noncompliance without requiring needless or burdensome monitoring.
To establish a monitoring frequency, the permit writer should estimate the variability ofthe concentration ofthe parameter by reviewing effluent data for the facility (e.g., from DMRs) or inthe absence of actual data, information from similar dischargers. A highly variable discharge should require more frequent monitoring than a discharge that is relatively consistent over time (particularly interms offlow and

8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 119Monltorlng and Reportlng Conditions 

### Chapter 7 

## EXHIBIT 7-1 Examples of Specifying Sampling Locations in Permits NARRATIVE: Part I. SELF-MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A. Sample Locations I. Discharge from theChemistry-Fine Arts Building shall besampledatoutfall 001 2. Discharge from theDuane Physics Building shall besampledatoutfall 002 3. Discharge from the ResearchLab No. 1shall besampledatoutfall 003 DIAGRAM: PartI. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS A. Sample Locations Outfall Description 001 Discharge Pipe- Discharge of wastewater generatedbyall regulated metal finishing processesatthe facility. Samplesshall becollected atthepoint indicated ontheattached diagram.

Parshall Flume

’ 3

L Receiving

A -I Stream

Outfall 001

*Sample Point
IWe Final pH Adjustment Tank

pollutant concentration). Inaddition to the estimated variability, other factors that should be considered when establishing appropriate monitoring frequencies include:

0 Design capacity of treatment facility-As an example, at equivalent average flow rates, a large lagoon system that is not susceptible to bypasses requires less frequent monitoring than an overloaded treatment facility that experiences fluctuating flow rates due to infiltration or large batch discharges from an industrial user system. The lagoon should have a relatively low variability compared to the facility receiving batch discharges.

120-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonltorlng and Reportlng C~nbtions Chapter 7

l Type of treatment method used-The type ofwastewater treatment used by the facility will determine the need for process control monitoring and effluent monitoring. An industrial facility with biological treatment would have similar monitoring frequencies to asecondary treatment plant with the same units used for wastewater treatment. Ifthe treatment method is appropriate and achieving high pollutant removals on aconsistent basis, the need for monitoring may be less than a plant with little treatment or insufficient treatment. a Post compliance record/history-The monitoring frequency may be adjusted to reflect the compliance history ofthe facility. Afacility with problems achieving compliance generally should be required to perform additional monitoring to characterize the source or cause ofthe problems or to detect noncompliance. 0 Cost of monitoring relative to discharger’s capabilities-The permit writer should not require excessive monitoring unless itis necessary to provide sufficient information about the discharge (analytical costs are addressed in Section 7.1.5). 0 Frequency of the discharge--If wastewater isdischarged in batches on an infrequent basis, the monitoring frequency should be different from a continuously discharged, highly concentrated wastewater, or awastewater containing a pollutant that isfound infrequently and at very low concentrations. The production schedule ofthe facility (e.g., seasonal, daily), the plant washdown schedule, and other similar factors should be considered. 0 Number of monthly samples used in developing permit limit-The monitoring frequency should reflect the number of monthly samples used in developing the permit limits, and/or the monitoring frequencies used to develop any applicable effluent guidelines. 0 Tiered Limits-Where the permit writer has included “tiered” limits in an NPDES permit, consideration should be given to varying the monitoring frequency requirements to correspond to the applicable tiers. For example, ifafacility has seasonal discharge limits, itmay be appropriate to increase the monitoring frequency during the higher production season, and reduce the frequency during the off-season.
An alternative method that can be used by permit writers to establish monitoring frequencies isthe quantitative approach described inthe Technical Support Documenf for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (TSD)30. In short, the TSD3’ approach

30USEPA (1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/Z-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits. 3’ibid. 8ER4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 121Monltwlng and Reporting Cmiiions Chapter 7

requires calculating the long-term average pollutant concentration (accounting for the expected variability of the discharge) and comparing itto the permit limit to determine the likelihood of noncompliance. The closer the long-term average isto the permit limit, the more frequent the monitoring that should be required. Obviously, this quantitative approach requires a reasonable data set from which to calculate the longterm average. Permit writers should refer to the TSD3* for more information regarding this approach.
A permit writer may also establish atiered monitoring schedule that reduces or increases monitoring frequency during a permit cycle. Tiered monitoring, which reduces monitoring over time, may be useful for discharges where the initial sampling shows compliance with effluent limits. Ifproblems are found during the initial sampling, more frequent sampling and more comprehensive monitoring can be applied. This step-wise approach could lead to lower monitoring costs for permittees while still providing an adequate degree of protection ofwater quality. Regulatory Update In response to President Clinton’s RegulatoryReinvention initiative, which established the goal of reducing monitoring and reporting burden by25%, EPA issued interim Guidance for Performance-Based Reductions ofNPDES Permit Monitoring frequencies onApril 19, 1996 (EPA-833-B-96-001 ). Under this guidance, NPDES reporting and monitoring requirements are reduced based on ademonstration of excellent historical performance. Facilities can demonstrate this historical performance by meeting aset ofcompliance and enforcement criteria and by demonstrating their ability toconsistently discharge pollutants below the levels necessary to meettheir existing NPDES permit limits. Reductions are determined parameter-by-parameter, based onthe existing monitoring frequency and the percentage below the limit that parameter isbeing discharged at. The reductions are incorporated into the permit at the time ofpermit reissuance. To remain eligible forthese reductions, permittees are expected to maintain parameter performance levels and good compliance and enforcement history that were used as the basis for granting the reductions.


### 7.1.3 Sample Collection Methods In addition to establishing the frequency of monitoring, the permit writer must specify the type of sample that must be collected. The two basic sample collection methods include “grab” and “composite.”
The analytical methods specified in40 CFR Part 136 are required for all monitoring performed under the NPDES Program, unless the permit specifically

?JSEPA (1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA50542-90-001. Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits.
122-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonltorlng and Repmthg Cmbtions Chapter 7

requires alternate methods. For many analytical procedures, the sample collection method (grab or composite) is not specified in40 CFR Part 136, thus itshould be specified inthe discharge permit. 40 CFR Part 136 specifies that grab samples must be collected for pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorine, purgeable organics, sulfides, oil and grease, coliform bacteria and cyanide. The reason grab samples must be.taken for these parameters isthat they evaluate characteristics that may change during the time necessary for compositing.
A “grab” sample isa single sample collected at a particular time and place that represents the composition ofthe wastestream only atthat time and place. When the quality and flow ofthe wastestream being sampled is not likely to change over time, a grab sample is appropriate. Grab samples should be used when:

. The wastewater characteristics are relatively constant.

l The parameters to be analyzed are likely to change with storage such as temperature, residual chlorine, soluble sulfide, cyanides, phenols, microbiological parameters and pH.

l The parameters to be analyzed are likely to be affected by the cornpositing process such as oil and grease and volatiles.

. Information on variability over ashort time period is desired.

l Composite sampling is impractical or the cornpositing process is liable to introduce artifacts of sampling.

l The spatial parameter variability isto be determined. For example, variability through the cross section and/or depth of astream or a large body ofwater.

. Effluent flows are intermittent from well-mixed batch process tanks. Each batch dumping event should be sampled.
Grab samples can measure maximum effect only when the sample is collected during flows containing the maximum concentration of pollutants toxic to the test organism.
Another type of grab sample issequential sampling. A special type of automatic sampling device collects relatively small amounts of asampled wastestream, with the interval between sampling either time or flow proportioned. Unlike the automatic composite sampler, the sequential sampling device automatically retrieves a sample and holds itin a bottle separate from other automatically retrieved samples. Many individual samples can be stored separately inthe unit, unlike the

am NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 123Monltorlng and Repmthg CmGtions Chapter 7

composite sampler which combines aliquots in acommon bottle. This type of sampling iseffective for determining variations ineffluent characteristics over short periods oftime.
A “composite” sample isacollection of individual samples obtained at regular intervals, usually based upon time orflow volume. A composite sample isdesirable when the material being sampled varies significantly over time either as a result of flow or quality changes. There are two general types of composites and the permit writer should clearly express which type is required inthe permit:

l Time composite samples collect afixed volume at equal time intervals and are acceptable when flow variability is not excessive. Automatically timed cornposited samples are usually preferred over manually collected composites. Composite samples collected by hand are appropriate for infrequent analyses and screening. Composite samples can be collected manually ifsubsamples have afixed volume at equal time intervals when flow variability is not excessive.

. Flow-proportional cornpositing is usually preferred when effluent flow volume varies appreciably over time. The equipment and instrumentation for flow-proportional cornpositing have more downtime due to maintenance problems. When manually cornpositing effluent samples according to flow where no flow measuring device exists, use the influent flow measurement without any correction for time lag. The error inthe influent and effluent flow measurement is insignificant except inthose cases where extremely large volumes ofwater are impounded, as in reservoirs.
There are numerous cases where composites are inappropriate. Samples for some parameters should not be cornposited (pH, residual chlorine, temperature, cyanides, volatile organics, microbiological tests, oil and grease, total phenols). They are also not recommended for sampling batch or intermittent processes. Grab samples are needed inthese cases to determine fluctuations in effluent quality.
For whole effluent toxicity (WET), composite samples are used unless itis known that the effluent is most toxic at a particular time. Some toxic chemicals are short-lived, degrade rapidly, and will not be present inthe most toxic form after lengthy cornpositing even with refrigeration or other forms of preservation. Grab samples should be required for bioassays to be taken under those circumstances.

124-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonltorlng and Reporting Cmdiions Chapter 7 Ifasampling protocol is not specified inthe regulations, the duration ofthe cornpositing time period and frequency of aliquot collection isestablished by the permit writer. Whether collected by hand or by an automatic device, the time frame within which the sample iscollected should be specified inthe permit. The number of individual aliquots which compose the composite should also be specified. NPDES application requirements specify a minimum offour aliquots for non-stormwater discharges lasting four or more hours. Eight types of composite samples and the advantages and disadvantages of each are shown in Exhibit 7-2. As shown in Exhibit 7-2, samples may be cornposited by time or flow and a representative sample will be assured. However, where both flow and pollutant concentration fluctuate dramatically, aflow-proportioned composite sample should be taken because agreater quantity of pollutant will be discharged during these periods. As an alternative, time-proportioned samples may be taken with flow records used for weighing the significance ofvarious samples.
Continuous monitoring isanother option for a limited number of parameters such as flow, total organic carbon (TOC), temperature, pH, conductivity, fluoride and dissolved oxygen. Reliability, accuracy and cost of continuous monitoring vary with the parameter. Continuous monitoring can be expensive, so continuous monitoring will usually only be an appropriate requirement for the most significant dischargers with variable effluent. The environmental significance ofthe variation of any ofthese parameters inthe effluent should be compared to the cost of continuous monitoring.

Technical Note When establishing continuous monitoring requirements, the permit writer should be aware that the NPDES regulations concerning pH limits allow foraperiid ofexcursion when the effluent isbeing continuously monitored (40CFR 5401.17).



### 7.1.4 Analyticai Methods The permit writer must specify the analytical methods to be used for monitoring. These are usually indicated as 40 CFR Part 136 inthe standard conditions ofthe permit [40 CFR @122.41(j)(4) and 122.44(i)]. In particular, analytical methods for industrial and municipal wastewater pollutants must be conducted in accordance with

8EFM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 125Monltorlng and Fleporthg Conditions Chapter 7 

## EXHIBIT 7-2 Compositing Methods Method I Advantages I Disadvantages I Comments rime Composite 1Constant sample Minimal instrumentation May lack representativeness, Widely usedin both volume, constant time and manual effort; requires especially for highly variable automatic samplers interval between noflow measurement flows andmanual handling samples Flow-Proportional Composite BConstant sample Minimal manual effort Requires accurateflow Widely usedin volume, time interval measurement reading automatic aswell as between samples equipment; manual manual sampling proportional tostream compositing from flowchart flow BConstant time interval Minimal instrumentation Manual cornpositing from Usedin automatic between samples. flowchart in absenceof prior samplersandwidely samplevolume information ontheratio of usedasmanual proportional tototal minimum to maximum flow; method streamflow attime of chanceof collecting toosmall sampling ortoo large individual discrete samplesfor agiven composite volume mConstant time interval Minimal instrumentation Manual compositing from flow Not widely usedin between samples, chart in absenceof prior automatic samplers samplevolume information ontheratio of but maybedone proportional tototal minimum tomaximum flow; manually streamflow since last chanceof collecting either too sample small ortoo large individual discrete samplesfor agiven composite volume Sequential Composite

l Seriesof short period Useful if fluctuations occur Requires manual compositing Commonly used; composites, constant andtime history isdesired of aliquots basedon flow however, manual time intervals between compositing is labor samples intensive

l Seriesof short period Useful if fluctuations occur Requires flow totalizer; Manual compositing composites. aliquots andtime history isdesired requires manual compositing is labor intensive taken atconstant ofaliquots basedonflow discharge increments Continuous Composite

l Constant samplevolume Minimal manual effort, requires noflow measurement Requires large sample Practical but not capacity; may lack widely used representativeness for highly variable flows

l Samplevolume proportional tostream flow Minimal manual effort, mostrepresentative especially for highly variable flows Requires accurateflow Not widely used measurementequipment, large samplevolume, variable pumping capacity, andpower

126-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonltorlng and Fleportlng CmdSons Charrter 7

the methods specified pursuant to 40 CFR Part 136, which references one or more of the following:

. Test methods inAppendix A of40 CFR Part l3633

. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition 34

. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wasfewafer35

. Test Methods: Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wasfewater.36
The analytical methods contained in40 CFR Part 136 are test methods designed only for priority and conventional pollutants, and some nonconventional pollutants. Inthe absence of analytical methods for other parameters, the permit writer must still specify the analytical methods to be used. An excellent source of analytical method information isthe Environmental Monitoring Methods index (EMMI). The EMMI isan official EPA database linking 50 EPA regulatory lists, 2,600 substances and 926 analytical methods on EMMI. EMMI data correlate EPA’s regulated substances with their associated analytical methods, published detection limits, and regulatory limits. For more information, call NTIS at (703) 321-8547 for system requirements. 

### 7.1.5 Other Considerations in Establishing Monitoring Requirements The regulations do not specifically require a permit writer to evaluate costs when establishing monitoring conditions in a permit. However, as a practical matter, the permit writer should consider the cost of sampling that he/she imposes on the permittee. The sample frequency and analyses impact the analytical cost. The estimated 1994-1995 costs for analytical procedures are shown in Exhibit 7-3.

33Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act (40CfR Part 736). (Use most currentversion) %American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation (1992). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Ed. %SEPA (1979). Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Wafer and Wastewater. EPA-600/ 4-79-020. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. %SEPA (1982). Test Methods: Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and industrial Wastewater. EPA-600/4-82-057. 643% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 127Mcfnttorlng and Reporting Conditions 

### Chapter 7 

## EXHIBIT 7-3 Estimated Costsfor Common Analytical Procedures’

Gasoline (Benzene, Toluene, Xylene) Purgeable Halocarbons (EPA Method 601) Acrolein andAcrylonitrile (EPA Method 603) Purgeables {EPA Method 624) Phenols (EPA Method 604) Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs (EPA Method 608) Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (EPA Method 610) Dioxin (2, 3,7,8-TCDD (EPA Method 613)) Base/Neutrals andAcids (EPA Method 625) Priority poIlution scan2 Acute WET Chronic WET
1Basedon 1994-I 995costs. $100 $113 $133 $251 4 $160 $157 $175 $400 $434 $2,000 $750 $1,500

2Includes 13metals, cyanide, dioxin, volatiles (purgeables), base/neutral andacids, pesticides and PCBs, and asbestos.

128-8694 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonitoring and Flepotthtg Conditions 

### Chapter 7

Ifsimple or inexpensive indicator parameters (e.g., BOD, acts as an indicator for the priority pollutants inthe Wood and Gum Chemicals category) or alternate parameters will produce data representative ofthe pollutant present inthe discharge, then the indicators or surrogate pollutants or parameters should be considered. Complex and expensive sampling requirements may not be appropriate ifthe permit writer cannot justify the need for such analyses. 

### 7.1.6 Establishing Monitoring Conditions for Unique Discharges There are avariety of discharges that are regulated under the NPDES permit program that are different than traditional wastewater discharges. A permit writer needs to account for these unique discharges in establishing monitoring requirements. This section discusses several ofthese unique discharges including storm water, combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows, WET, and municipal sludge. 

### Storm Water Monitoring Considerations Monitoring requirements vary according to the type of permit regulating the storm water discharge and the activity. Storm water discharges may be regulated by State programs, provided the State is authorized to administer the NPDES Storm Water Program, or EPA Regions. Atthe Federal level, several permitting options are available; depending on the type of activity, industrial facilities may seek coverage under an individual permit, the Baseline Industrial General Permit, or the Multi-sector General Permit. In addition, construction activities that disturb 5 or more acres of land are regulated under the Baseline Construction General Permit. Municipalities serving over 100,000 people are also regulated, but on an individual permit basis. Each of these permitting mechanisms establishes different monitoring programs. Several States have used the Federal permits as models for their permit conditions. Specific monitoring conditions for the Federal general permits are detailed inthe following documents:

. “Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges Associated With industrial Activity,” Federal Register, September 9, 1992. (Baseline Industrial General Permit).

&El% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 129Monttorlng and Fleportlng Ceons Chapter 7

. “Final NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites,” Federal Register, September 9, 1992. (Baseline Construction General Permit).

. “Final NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for fndustrial Activities,” Federal Register, September 9, 1992. (Multi-Sector General Permit). 

### Monitoring Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows EPA’s CSO Control Policy (59 FR 18688) requires monitoring to characterize the combined sewer system, assist indeveloping the Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP), and illustrate compliance with permit requirements. Monitoring as part ofthe nine minimum controls (NMC) isdone to develop an initial system characterization and includes analyzing existing data on precipitation events, on the combined sewer system and CSOs, on water quality, and conducting field inspections. As part of the LTCP, a permittee is required to develop a more complete characterization ofthe sewer system through monitoring and modeling. Finally, to illustrate compliance with the permit requirements, the permittee is required to conduct a post-construction compliance monitoring program. Specific monitoring requirements ofthis postconstruction compliance monitoring program will be unique to each permittee’s LTCP and should be established as specific monitoring conditions inthe individual NPDES permit. These monitoring conditions should require monitoring of a representative number of CSOs for a representative number ofwet weather events for certain key parameters along with ambient water quality monitoring to ascertain attainment with water quality standards. EPA iscurrently preparing eight guidance manuals on various aspects ofthe CSO Control Policy, including one on monitoring, Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling (draft).37
Afacility’s permit may also contain monitoring requirements for sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). These would be developed on acase-by-case basis.

37USEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling. (DRAFT). EPA-832/R-95-005. 130 -&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualMonftorlng and Flqmthg Conditions Chapter 7



### Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring The use of whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing to evaluate the toxicity in a receiving stream was discussed inChapter 6. The biomonitoring test procedures were promulgated in40 CFR Part 136 on October 16, 1995 (60 FR 53529). WET monitoring conditions included in permits should specify the particular biomonitoring test to be used, the test species, required test endpoint, and QA/QC procedures. EPA has published recommended toxicity test protocols infour manuals:

. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms.38

l Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms3’

. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms.40

. NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training: Biomonitoring.4’ Samples for WET may be composite or grab samples. Twenty-four hour composite samples are suggested except when (1) the effluent isexpected to be more toxic at acertain time of day; (2) toxicity may be diluted during cornpositing; and (3) the size ofthe sample needed exceeds the composite sampler volume (e.g., 5 gallons).
WET tests are relatively expensive (see Exhibit 7-3 on costs). Therefore the test frequency should be related tothe probability of any discharger having whole

?JSEPA (1991). Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicify of Effluents and Receiving Waters fo freshwater and Marine Organisms %SEPA (1991). Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Matine and Estuarine Organisms, EPA-600/4-91-003. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. “USEPA (1991). Short-Term Methods for Estimating fhe Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to freshwater Organisms, Third Edition. EPA-600/4-91-002. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. 41USEPA (1990). NPDES Compliance Monitoring inspector Training: Biomonitoring. Office of Water. 88F# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 131Manitorlng and Reporting Cm&Sons Chapter T

effluent toxicity. Samples should be evenly spaced throughout the year so that seasonal variability can be ascertained. 

### Municipal Sludge Monitoring The purpose of monitoring municipal sludge isto ensure safe use or disposal. The 40 CFR Part 503 sludge regulations require monitoring of sewage sludge that is applied to land, placed on a surface disposal site, or incinerated. The frequency of monitoring is based on the annual amount of sludge that is used or disposed by these methods. POTWs that provide the sewage sludge to another party for further treatment (such as composting) must provide that party with the information necessary to comply with 40 CFR Part 503. Sewage sludge disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill unit must meet the requirements in40 CFR Part 258, which isthe criteria for municipal solid waste landfills.
Exhibit 7-4 shows the minimum monitoring requirements for sewage sludge prior to use and disposal established in40 CFR Part 503. More frequent monitoring for any of the required or recommended parameters isappropriate when the POTW:

. lnfluent load oftoxics or organic solids is highly variable

. Has a significant industrial load

. Has a history of process upsets due to toxics, or of adverse environmental impacts due to sludge use or disposat activities.
The sampling and analysis methods specified in40 CFR $503.8 should be followed for monitoring the required parameters. Inthe absence of any specific methods in40 CFR Part 503, guidance on appropriate methods iscontained in Part 503 Implementation Guidance,42 Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage SIudge,43 and PO7W Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Documen t.44

“USEPA (1995). Part 50.3 Implementation Guidance. EPA 833-R-95-001. Office ofWater. ‘?JSEPA (1992). Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. EPA-625/R-92- 013. Office of Research and Development. “USEPA (1989). POW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Document. Office ofWater, Permits Division. 132-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualManitorlng and Reporthg Conditions Chapter 7 

## EXHIBIT 7-4 Minimum Requirements for SewageSludge Monitoring, Basedon Method of Sludge Useor Disposal Method Land Application

Co-disposal in Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

Surface Disposal: Lined Sites with leuchate collection and Unlined Sites

Incineration Monitoring Requirements Frequency

(I) Sludge weight and $4:total solids Metals: As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, MO, Ni, Se,andZn Pathogen Reduction Vector Attraction Reduction (I) Sludge weight and c/ctotal solids (1)0< illld <290*, annually 290~ and < I,SOO, quarterly 1 SOO<and< 15,000. bimonthly 15,000 = or <. monthly
(2) PassesPaint-Filter Liquid Test (3) Suitability of sludge usedas cover (I), (2), (3). and (4) Monitoring requirements or frequency not specified by 40 CFR Part 503. Determined by local health authority or landfill owner/operator (4) Characterize in accordance with hazardous waste rules (I) Sludge weight and ‘3 total solids (I) Based on sludge quantity (asabove) Pathogen Reduction Vector Attraction Reduction Metals: As, Cr, Ni (Unlined Sites Only) (2) Continuously

(2) Methane gas (1)Sludge weight and o/ctotal solids (I) Based on sludge quantity (asabove) Metals: As. Cd, Crl Pb, and h‘i (2) Be and Hg (Nat. Emissions Standards) (2) As required by subparts C and Eof 40 CFR Part 61 asmay bespecified by permitting authority (local air authority) (3) THC or CO, 0,. moisture, combustion temperatures (3) Continuously (4) Air pollution control device (4) Daily operating parameters cCiCation 40CFR Part503.I6

10CFR Part258.28

10CFR Part503.26

40CFR Part 503.46

Notes: 1. Monitoring frequencies rcquircd under40CFR Part503may hereducedafter 2yearsof monitoring

hut in nocaseshall helessthanonceperyear. 2. A successful land application program may necessitatesampling for other constituents of concern (such asnitrogen) indetermining appropriate ngronomk rates. This will bedetcmlined bythe permit writer. *Dry weight of sludge in metric tonsperyear.

&El% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -133Chapter 7 Monitoring and Reporting Conditions



## 7.2 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements The NPDES regulations at40 CFR ~~122.41(1)(4)(j) and (I) require the permittee to keep records and periodically report on monitoring activities. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (see form in Exhibit 7-5) must be used by permittees to report self-monitoring data. Data reported include both data required by the permit and any additional data the permittee has collected consistent with permit requirements. All facilities are required to submit reports (on discharges and sludge use or disposal) at least annually per 40 CFR $122,44(i)(2). POTWs with pretreatment programs are required to submit a pretreatment report at least annually per Section 403.12(i). However, the NPDES regulation states that monitoring frequency and reporting should be dependent on the nature and effect ofthe discharge/sludge use or disposal. Thus, the permit writer can require more frequent than annual reporting.
Records must be kept by the permittee for at least 3years and this time may be extended by the Director upon request. An exception isfor sewage sludge records which must be kept 5years or longer ifrequired by 40 CFR Part 503. The permit writer should designate where records should be located. Monitoring records include:

. Date, place, time

. Name of sampler

. Date of analysis

. Name of analyst

. Analytical methods used

. Analytical results. According to 40 CFR 5122.41(j), monitoring records must be representative of the discharge. Records which must be retained include continuous strip chart recordings, calibration data, copies of all reports for the permit, and copies of all data used to compile reports and applications. Sludge regulations under 40 CFR §§ 503.17, 503.27, and 503.47 establish recordkeeping requirements that vary depending on the use and disposal method for the sludge. The same recordkeeping requirements should be applied to other sludge monitoring parameters not regulated by the 40 CFR Part 503 rule.
134 -iiEfM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

## EXHIBIT 7-5. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) ,~t”“,,,tt *,YI,AwIILss,h.t-c *.rrDurHa,Y,..,D(~“1)*it‘LIYln*IK)*S”~rlYIN~~~.,, ,r,r, ALldLyljl ~,do~~n OISCHAROE mowlo(u11o MPoa’ Il*(RI “AME ,lld, ,,7 I”, ..--- ---- --- _-- --- --- ADDRESS 

## ____ ---------- ..---- -

_____ -_---_ _--- ----- \GGizq F]

8ER4 NPDES Permit Wrlters’ Manual - 135

# Chapter 8

Special Conditions
Special conditions in NPDES permits are designed to provide an additional measure of control (beyond numeric effluent limits) for the reduction of discharges of pollutants to waters ofthe United States. They are not included inthe effluent limitations section of a permit because they do not contain specific numeric limits. The purpose of special conditions isto encourage the permittee to undertake activities designed to reduce the overall quantity of pollutants being discharged, or to reduce the potential for discharges of pollutants.
There are many different reasons to incorporate special conditions into apermit including the following:

• To address unique situations, such as facilities discharging pollutants for which data are absent or limited such that derivation of technology- or water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) is difficult or impossible • To incorporate preventative requirements, such as requirements to install process control alarms, containment structures, good housekeeping practices, etc. • To address foreseeable changes to discharges, such as planned changes to process, products, or raw materials that may affect discharge characteristics

l To incorporate compliance schedules to provide the time necessary to comply with permit conditions

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 137Special Conditions Chapter 8

• To incorporate other NPDES Programmatic requirements (e.g., pretreatment, municipal sewage sludge) • To impose additional monitoring activities that provide the permit writer data to evaluate the need for changes in permit limitations • To increase or decrease monitoring requirements, depending on the monitoring results or certain changes in processes or products, etc. • To impose requirements to conduct special studies such as ambient stream surveys, toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs), bioaccumulation studies, sediment studies, mixing or mixing zone studies, pollutant reduction evaluations, or other such information gathering studies.
Section 8.1 of this chapter addresses the general types of special conditions for both municipal and non-municipal facilities. Special conditions for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity are explained in Section 8.2. Finally, special conditions unique to POTW/municipal permits are addressed in Section 8.3.

8.1 General Types of Special Conditions This section discusses several general types of special conditions that could be used in any NPDES permit (i.e., municipal or non-municipal). The special conditions include:

• Special studies/additional monitoring • Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Pollution prevention • Compliance schedules.

8.1.1 Special Studies and Additional Monitoring Special studies and additional monitoring requirements imposed beyond those required under the effluent limits section of the permit are useful for collecting data that was not available to the permit writer for consideration during permit development. Special studies and additional monitoring requirements are generally used to supplement numeric effluent limits or support future permit development activities.

138 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial CondMons 

### Chapter 8

Examples ofthe types of special studies that could be required in a NPDES permit include:

0 Treatability studies-Applicable when treatability information is lacking for

a pollutant or pollutants that would prohibit a permit writer from developing defensible technology-based effluent limits. Treatability studies can also be required when the permit writer suspects that afacility may not be able to comply with an effluent limit.

l Toxicity identification evaluation/Toxicity reduction evaluation (TImRE)-Required for facilities for which wastewater discharges are found to be toxic as a result of awhole effluent toxicity (WET) test. The purpose ofthese evaluations isto identify and control the sources oftoxicity in an effluent. Further guidance related to EPA recommended TIE/TRE procedures and requirements can be found inthe following guidance manuals:

- Toxicity Reduction Evabation Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.45

- Generalized Methodology for Conducting Industrial Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs).~~

- Methods for Aquatic Toxicity identification Evaluations: Phase 1Toxicity Characterization Procedures. Second Edition.47

- Sediment Toxicity identification Evaluations: Phase I(Characterization), Phase II (Identification), Phase 111 (Confirmation) Modifications of Effluent Procedures.48

- Toxicity identification Evaluations: Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase L4’

45USEPA (1989). Toxicity Reducfion Evaluation Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. EPA-600/4-89-OOlA. Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. 46USEPA (1989). Generalized Methodology for Conducting industrial Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TRES). EPA-600/2-88-070. Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. 47USEPA (1991). Methods for Aquatic Toxicity ldentificafion Evaluations: Phase IToxicity Characterization Procedures. Second Edition. EPA-600/6-91-003. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 48USEPA (1991). Sediment Toxicity identification Evaluations: Phase I(Characterization), Phase II (Id&tification), Phase 111 (Confirmation) Modifications of Effluent Procedures. EPA-600/6-91-007. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 4gUSEPA (1992). Toxicity ldenfificafion Evaluations: Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase 1. EPA-600/6-91-005F. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 86% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 139Special Conditions 

### Chapter 8

- Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase !I Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity.5o

- Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase III Confirmation Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. 5’

l Mixing or mixing zone studies -Used to assist in determining the allowable ambient mixing that can be applied when developing WQBELs.

. Sediment monitoring-Used ifa permit writer suspects that pollutants contained inwastewater discharges accumulate inthe sediments ofthe receiving water.

. Bioconcentration studies-These biological monitoring studies are used to determine whether pollutants contained in wastewater discharges bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms (e.g., fish, invertebrates). These types of studies are usually recommended when WQBELs for pollutants that bioaccumulate are established below analytical detection levels. Additional guidance related to evaluating the bioaccumulation potential of a pollutant can be found inthe EPA Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors.52
When establishing special conditions, permit writers must ensure that any particular requirements related to the study (e.g., special sampling or analytical procedures) are specified inthe permit condition. Inaddition, permit writers must establish a reasonable schedule for completion and submission ofthe study or monitoring program. Ifthe anticipated schedule is longer than 6 months to 1year, then itis recommended that the permit writer require that the facility provide an interim progress report.

“USEPA (1993). Methods for Aquatic Toxicity ldentificaiion Evaluations: Phase I/Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity, EPA-600/R-92-080. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 5’USEPA (1993). Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase 111 Confirmation Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity EPA-600/R-92-081. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. “USEPA (1995). Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumufation Factors. EPA-820/B-95-005. Office of Science and Technology. 140-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### SpecialConditions 

### Chapter 8

8.1.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs) In general, BMPs are measures to prevent or mitigate water pollution from sources ancillary to the industrial manufacturing ortreatment process. The NPDES regulations, at 40 CFR $122.2, define the term “best management practices” and provide the following measures as examples of BMPs:

l Schedules of activities

l Prohibitions of practices

. Maintenance procedures

. Treatment requirements

l Operating procedures and practices to control

- Plant site runoff

- Spillage or leaks

- Sludge or waste disposal

- Drainage from raw material storage areas.
The NPDES regulations at40 CFR $122.44(k) acknowledge that BMPs shall be included as permit conditions (when applicable) where they are authorized under Section 304(e) ofthe CWA; when numeric effluent limitations are infeasible; or when they are necessary to achieve limitations or carry out the purpose and intent ofthe CWA. Examples ofwhen numeric effluent limitations are infeasible include:

. Regulating a pollutant for which limited treatability or aquatic impact information are available to allow development oftechnology-based or water quality-based effluent limits

. Regulating releases when the types of pollutants vary greatly over time.
Other circumstances when BMPs should be imposed as permit conditions include:

l When chemical analyses are inappropriate or impossible

. When a history of leaks and spills exist or when housekeeping issloppy

. When acomplex facility lacks toxic pollutant data

l When other discharge control options are prohibitively expensive.
Permit writers may include BMPs in pennits intwo basic ways: require the development of ageneral BMP plan, and/or require site-, process-, or pollutant-
&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 141Special Conditions 

### Chapter 8

specific BMPs. How BMPs are included as a permit condition, depends on the type of permit being developed. Inthe case of an individual permit, where a permit writer is developing permit conditions for a particular facility and has the opportunity to review the circumstances ofthe facility, the development of site- or pollutant-specific BMPs may be appropriate. On the other hand, including site- or pollutant-specific BMPs as conditions in a general permit may not be appropriate since they are highly dependent on the circumstances of individual facilities. As a result, discharges covered under a general permit may be required to develop ageneral BMP plan that allows the permittee to determine appropriate BMPs based on the circumstances oftheir particular facility.
The Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMP@ describes the activities and materials at an industrial or municipal facility which are best addressed by BMP plans. The manual also describes how BMPs work and gives examples ofthe types of BMPs that can be used.
Ifa permit writer uses a general permit requirement for a BMP plan, it isthe responsibility ofthe facility to plan, develop and implement, and reevaluate the success/shortfalls of its own plan. Usually, a BMP committee (group of individuals within the plant organization) is responsible for developing the BMP plan and assisting the plant management in implementing and updating the BMP plan. However, plant management, not the committee, has overall responsibility and accountability for the quality ofthe BMP plan.
EPA has identified several recommended components for effective BMP plans. The minimum suggested components of ageneral BMP plan are presented below:

l General Requirements

- Name and location offacility

- Statement of BMP policy and objective

- Review by plant manager
l Specific Requirements

- BMP committee

53USEPA (1993). Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs). EPA 833-B-93-004. Office ofWater.
142 -88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial Conditions 

### Chapter 8

- Risk identification and assessment
- Reporting of BMP incidents

- Materials compatibility

- Good housekeeping

- Preventive maintenance

- Inspections and records

- Security

- Employee training.
Each ofthese components are discussed in more detail inthe Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) .54 Site-, process-, and pollutant-specific BMPs are designed to address conditions particular to a site, process, or pollutant. The need for specific BMPs at afacility often will be discovered inconjunction with other permit-related activities, such as compliance inspections. Poor housekeeping or a history of spills, for example, indicate a need for specific BMPs to supplement the quantitative effluent limits for specific pollutants inthe permit.
To select a specific BMP, the permit writer must:

. Review the industry profiles to determine the industrial processes that apply

. Evaluate whether the BMP would help to achieve the environmental objectives ofthe industry

. Use industry- or municipal-specific examples from other permits, pollution prevention sources, existing permits for similar processes, or EPA guidance documents.
BMP plans can be submitted for review by the regulatory agency but are usually kept onsite and made available tothe permitting authority upon request. The normal compliance schedule isto require preparation ofthe BMP plan within 6 months, and implementation ofthe plan within 12 months of permit issuance. Specific BMPs have been developed for storm water discharges and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and are discussed in Sections 8.2 and 8.3, respectively.

54USEPA (1993). Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs). EPA 833-B-93-004. Office ofWater. 86% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 143Special Conditions 

### Chapter 8

Example: The following isexample language for requiring development and implementation ofa BMP Plan in an NPDES permit. The language should becrafted and changed as necessary to meet the individual facility’s needs and State/EPA goals forthefacility. The text which is‘*redlined** (i.e., text between asterisks) needs special permit-specific consideration. 1. Implementation. Ifa BMP Plan does not exist: The permittee, shall develop and implement aBest Management Practices (BMP) Plan which achieves the objectives and the specific requirements listed below. Acopy ofthe Plan shall be submitted to EPA ‘*and/or Stateagency.** The Plan shall be implemented assoon as possible but no later than twelve months from the effective date ofthe permit. IfaBMP Plan already exists: The permittee shall duringthe term ofthis permit operate the facility inaccordance with the BMP Plan **(cite existing Plan)** orinaccordance with subsequent amendments tothe Plan. The permittee shall also amend this Plan, toincorporate practices toachieve the objectives and specific requirements listed below, and acopy shall besubmitted to EPA **and/or State agency’* The amended Plan shall be implemented assoon as possible but not later than six months from the effective date ofthe permit. 2. Purpose. Through implementation ofthe BMP Plan the permittee shalt prevent orminimize the generation and the potential forthe release ofpollutants from thefacility tothe waters ofthe United States through normal operations and ancillary activities. 3. Obiectives. The permittee shall develop and amend the BMP Plan consistent with the following objectives forthe control ofpollutants.
a. The number and quantity of pollutants ana the toxicity ofeffluent generated, discharged or potentially discharged atthe facility shall beminimized bythe permittee tothe extent feasible by managing each influent waste stream inthe most appropriate manner. b. Under the BMP Plan, and any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) included inthe Plan, the permittee shall ensure proper operation and maintenance ofthe treatment facility.
c. The permittee shall establish specific objectives forthe control ofpollutants by conducting the following evaluations. (1) Each facility component orsystem shall beexamined for itswaste minimization opportunities and itspotential for causing arelease ofsignificant amounts ofpollutants towaters ofthe United States due toequipment failure, improper operation, and natural phenomena such as rain orsnowfall, etc. The examination shall include all normal operations and ancillary activities including material storage areas, plant site runoff, in-plant transfer, process and material handling areas, loading or unloading operations, spillage orleaks, sludge and waste disposal, ordrainage from raw material storage. **note that only the area from the previous list which apply toafacility should be included” (2) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment failure (e.g., atank overflow or leakage), natural condition (e.g., precipitation), orother circumstances to result in significant amounts ofpollutants reaching surface waters, the program should include a prediction ofthe direction, rateofflow and total quantity ofpollutants which could be discharged from the facility asaresult ofeach condition orcircumstance.

144-8EF# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### SpecialConditions 

### Chapter 8

Example (continued): 4. Reuuirements. The BMP Plan shall beconsistent with the objectives in Part 3above and the general guidance contained inthe publication entitled Guidance Mama/ for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) (USEPA, 1993) orany subsequent revisions tothe guidance document. The BMP Plan shall:
a. Be documented in narrative form, shall include any necessary plot plans, drawings ormaps, and shall bedeveloped in accordance with good engineering practices. The BMP Plan shall be organized and written with the following structure: (1) Name and location ofthe facility. (2) Statement of BMP policy. (3) Structure, functions, and procedures ofthe BMP Committee. (4) Specific management practices and standard operating procedures to achieve the above objectives, including, but not limited to,the following: (a) modification ofequipment, facilities, technology, processes, and procedures, (b) reformulation or redesign ofproducts, (c) substitution of materials, and (d) improvement in management, inventory control, materials handling orgeneral operational phases ofthefacility. (5) Risk identification and assessment. (6) Reporting of BMP incidents. (7) Materials compatibility. (8) Good housekeeping. (9) Preventative maintenance. (10) Inspections and records. (11) Security. (12) Employee training.
b. Include the following provisions concerning BMP Plan review: (1) Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant manager. (2) Be reviewed and endorsed bythe permittee’s BMP Committee. (3) Include astatement that the above reviews have been completed andthat the BMP Plan fulfills the requirements setforth inthis permit. The statement shall becertified bythe dated signatures ofeach BMP Committee member.
c. Establish specific best management practices to meetthe objectives identified in Part 3ofthis section, addressing each component orsystem capable ofgenerating orcausing arelease of significant amounts ofpollutants, and identifying specific preventative or remedial measures to be implemented.

&EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 145Special Condblons 

### Chapter 8

Example (continued): d. Establish specific best management practices orother measures which ensure that the following specific requirements are met: (1) Ensure proper management ofsolid and hazardous waste inaccordance with regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Management practices required under RCRA regulations shall be referenced inthe BMP Plan. (2) Reflect requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans under Section 311 ofthe Act and 40CFR Part 112and may incorporate any part ofsuch plans into the BMP Plan by reference. (3) Reflect requirements forstorm water control under Section 402(p) ofthe Act and the regulations at40 CFR 122.26 and 122.44, and otherwise eliminate tothe extent practicable, contamination ofstorm water runoff. (4), etc. *‘Section 4.d. needs to betailored toeach facility bythe permit writer. Processes orareas ofthe facility with housekeeping problems, noncompliance, spills/leaks, orother problems which could be remedied through a BMP should beaddressed here. Ifasolution tothe problem is known (e.g., more frequent inspections, preventive maintenance, etc.)this remedy should also be included asa part ofthe BMP Plan requirements. To gather ideas for such requirements, the permit writer may want to contact the permittee. compliance personnel, facility inspectors, operations office personnel, State agency counterparts. The permit writer may also want tocheck requirements inother permits and BMP Plans for similar facilities.” 5. Documentation. The permittee shall maintain acopy ofthe BMP Plan atthe facility and shall make the plan available to EPA “and/or State agency** upon request. All offices ofthe permittee which are required to maintain acopy ofthe NPDES permit shall also maintain acopy ofthe BMP Plan. 6. BMP Plan Modification. The permit-teeshall amend the BMP Plan whenever there isachange inthe facility or inthe operation ofthe facility which materially increases the generation ofpollutants ortheir release orpotential release tothe receiving waters. The permittee shall also amend the Plan, as appropriate, when plant operations covered bythe BMP Plan change. Any such changes tothe BMP Plan shall be consistent with the objectives and specific requirements listed above. All changes in the BMP Plan shall be reported to EPA “and/or State agency** inwriting. 7. Modification for Ineffectiveness. Atany time, ifthe BMP Plan proves tobe ineffective in achieving the general objective of preventing and minimizing the generation ofpollutants and their release and potential release tothe receiving waters and/or the specific requirements above, the permit and/or the BMP Plan shall besubject to modification to incorporate revised BMP requirements. 

### 8.1.3 Pollution Prevention Pollution prevention has been shown to reduce costs as well as pollution risks through source reduction and recycling/reuse techniques. Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a national policy for a hierarchy of environmental management:

. Pollution should be prevented or reduced atthe source, whenever feasible.

. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible.

146-8E)# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpeclal Conditions 

### Chapter 8

. Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible.

. Disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
The Pollution Prevention Act emphasizes that pollution prevention means source reduction and defines source reduction as any practice that:

. Reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal

l Reduces the threats to public health and the environment associated with the release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants

. Increases the efficiency of using raw materials, energy, water, or other resources, or protects natural resources by conservation.
The environmental management hierarchy-prevention, recycling, treatment, and disposal-should be viewed as establishing a set of preferences, rather than an absolute judgment that prevention is always the most desirable option. The hierarchy is applied to many different circumstances that require good judgment. Prevention includes what iscommbnly called in-process recycling. Recycling conducted in an environmentally sound manner shares many ofthe advantages of prevention (e.g., energy and resource conservation and reduction ofthe need for end-of-pipe treatment or waste containment).
Within the NPDES Program, BMPs are inherently pollution prevention practices. Traditionally, BMPs have focused on good housekeeping measures and good management techniques that attempt to avoid contact between pollutants and water media as a result of leaks, spills, and improper waste disposal. However, based on the authority granted under the regulations, BMPs may include the universe of pollution prevention, which encompasses production modifications, operational changes, materials substitution, materials and water conservation, and other such measures.

88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 147Speclal Conditions 

### Chatier 8

8.1.4 Compliance Schedules The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 5122.47 allow permit writers to include schedules of compliance to allow permittees additional time to achieve compliance with the CWA and applicable regulations. Schedules developed under this provision must require compliance bythe permittee as soon as possible, but may not extend the date for final compliance beyond compliance dates established by the Act. Examples of situations where compliance schedules may be appropriate include:

. Pretreatment program development

. Sludge use and disposal program development and/or implementation

. New/revised effluent guidelines application

. New/revised water quality standards application

. BMP plan development and/or implementation

. Storm water, CSO and/or SSO control program development and/or implementation.
While compliance schedules may be appropriate for implementation of certain NPDES Program requirements, they are not appropriate for requirements where statutory deadlines have passed. In particular, compliance schedules are not appropriate under the following scenarios:
1. Compliance with Technoloov-Based Effluent Limits Compliance schedules are not allowed atthis time because statutory deadlines have passed for BPT, BAT, and BCT levels oftreatment.

. July 1, 1977 for BPT

. March 31, 1989 for BAT and BCT. This applies to both existing and new dischargers. Itshould be noted, however, that 40 CFR $122.29(d)(4) allows a new source or new discharger up to 90 days to “start-up” its pollution control equipment and achieve compliance with its permit conditions (i.e., provides for up to a go-day period to achieve compliance). 2. Compliance with Water Qualitv-Based Effluent Limits The determination of whether acompliance schedule to meet water qualitybased permit limits is permissible depends on when the applicable State water

148-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpeclal Conditions 

### Char&w 8 quality standards were initially promulgated. Because States were required to have water quality standards promulgated by July 1, 1977, and because facilities were supposed to have had the opportunity to comply with the standards, compliance schedules are not allowed ifthe State water quality standards were promulgated before July 1, 1977. Ifa State promulgates awater quality standards after July 1, 1977, and ifthe State water quality regulations allow for acompliance schedule to comply with the standards, then a compliance schedule could be granted in accordance with 40 CFR 47. Ifa State promulgates awater quality standards after July 1, 1977, and the State water quality regulations do not allow for acompliance schedule to comply with the standards, then a compliance schedule may not be granted. [See: Star-Kist Caribe, Inc., NPDES Appeal No. 88-51
In situations where the permittee will be unable to meet permit conditions, and where acompliance schedule pursuant to 40 CFR s122.47 is not permitted, the practical alternative isto initiate an Administrative Order under Section 309 ofthe CWA (containing aschedule of compliance) concurrent with permit issuance. 

## 8.2 Permit Conditions Addressing Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activities As previously discussed in Chapter 2, all storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge storm water through aseparate municipal storm sewer system (MS4) or discharge directly to waters ofthe United States are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage. Following the promulgation ofthe November 16, 1990, storm water application regulations, EPA and NPDES authorized States were faced with providing permit coverage for storm water discharges from over 100,000 industrial facilities. Due to the nature ofthe discharge (i.e., storm water) and the large number offacilities requiring permit coverage, EPA and most NPDES authorized States chose to use general permits as a mechanism to provide permit coverage for facilities requiring permit coverage for their storm water discharges.
Unlike discharges of process wastewater where numerical effluent limitations (technology-based and/or water quality-based) are typically used to control the discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities, the primary permit condition used to

0EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 149Special Condltlons 

### Chapter 8

address discharges of pollutants inafacilities storm water isa pollution prevention plan. The development and implementation ofa site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan isconsidered to be the most important requirement ofthe EPA and State issued storm water general permits. Site-specific storm water pollution prevention plans allow permittees to develop and implement “best management practices”, whether structural or non-structural, that are best suited for controlling storm water discharges from their industrial facility.
Each industrial facility covered under an EPA issued storm water general permit must develop a pollution prevention plan, tailored to the site specific conditions, and designed with the goal to control the amount ofpollutants instorm water discharges from the site. The special conditions component of EPA’s storm water general permits identify the requirements that each facility must include intheir storm water pollution prevention plan, including:

. A description of potential potlutant sources atthe facility, including:

- A map ofthe facility indicating the drainage areas ofthe site and the industrial activities which occur in each drainage area
- An inventory of materials that may be exposed to storm water

. - A description ofthe likely sources of pollutants from the site and a prediction ofthe pollutants which are likely to be present inthe storm water
- The history of spills and leaks oftoxic and hazardous materials over the last three years The measures and controls that will be implemented to prevent or minimize pollution of storm water, including: Good housekeeping or upkeep of industrial areas exposed to storm water Preventative maintenance of storm water controls and other facility equipment Spill prevention and response procedures Testing of outfalls to ensure that there are no illicit discharges Employee training on pollution prevention measure and controls, and record keeping.
A permit writer’s best source of information for developing appropriate special conditions for storm water controls are perhaps other storm water general permits. Using existing general permits as the basis for special conditions isencouraged since

150 -8EiY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial Condltlons 

### Chatier 8

this will reduce duplication of efforts. A listing of all general permits (storm water and non-storm water) issued by EPA as well as authorized States, which can be used as a permit writing resource, can be found inthe EPA Point Source tnformation Provision Exchange System (PIPES) accessible through EPA’s World Wide Web home page [http:/www.epa.gov]. In addition, EPA has developed the following guidance documents to help permit writers identify components of storm water pollution prevention plans as well as to assist permittees indeveloping plans:

. Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Pracfices.55

l Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices.56 

## 8.3 Special Conditions for Municipal Facilities This section explains several common special conditions that are applicable only to municipal facilities. These conditions reflect requirements for POTWs to implement and enforce local pretreatment programs for their industrial users; sludge disposal requirements; CSO requirements; SSO requirements; and MS4 requirements. 

### 8.3.1 The National Pretreatment Program Section 402(b)(8) ofthe CWA requires that POTWs receiving pollutants from significant industrial sources subject to section 307(b) standards establish a POTW pretreatment program to ensure compliance with these standards. The implementing regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(a) state, “any POTW (or combination of POlWs operated by the same authority) with atotal design flow greater than 5 million gallons per day (mgd) and receiving from industrial users pollutants which pass through or interfere with the operation ofthe POTW or are otherwise subject to pretreatment standards will be required to establish a POTW pretreatment program unless the NPDES State exercises its option to assume local responsibilities as provided in403.1 O(e).” EPA or a NPDES State with an approved pretreatment program 

### mayrequire POTWs with

55USEPA (1992). Storm WaterManagement for hcfustrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Managemenf Practices. EPA 832-R-92-006. Office of Water. 56USEPA (1992). Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Pracfices. EPA 832-R-92-005. &EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 151Specjal Conditions 

### Chapter 8

design flows of 5 mgd or less to develop a POTW pretreatment program if circumstances warrant (40 CFR 403.8(a)). The requirement to develop a pretreatment program only appfies to POTWs or States using the option under 403.10(e), this is primarily due to the fact that the pretreatment regulations at40 CFR 403 only apply to POTWs and industrial users of POTWs, and the State or EPA offices that issue permits to the POTWs.
Since 1978, approximately 1,500 POTWs have been required to develop and implement pretreatment programs as special conditions of NPDES permits. The pretreatment program was developed to control industrial discharges to POTWs and to meet three objectives at the POTWs: (I) to prevent pass through, (2) to prevent interference, including interference with its use or disposal of municipal sludge, (3) to improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewater and sludges.
As authorized by the pretreatment regulations at40 CFR 403,8(c),(d) and (e) and the NPDES regulations at40 CFR 122.44(j)(2), the requirements to develop and implement a POTW pretreatment program are placed as enforceable conditions inthe POTW’s NPDES permit.
Pretreatment Program development and Program Implementation are done as two separate steps, Through the NPDES permit the POTW is required to develop a Pretreatment Program. The POTW is required to submit an approvable program that meets the requirements in40 CFR 403.9(b), specifically, these requirements are the provisions of a program as laid 

### outin40 CFR 403.8(f). 40 CFR 403.8(f) requires the POTW to have certain legal authority (usually a municipal ordinance or set of regulations) and procedures to fully and effectively exercise and implement the legal authority and procedures. The POTW must submit a program detailing the legal authority to:
1. Deny or condition new or increased contributions of pollutants, or changes in nature of pollutants, to the POTW by industrial users; 2. Require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements by industrial users;

152-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial Condltlons 

### Chapter 8 3. Control through permit, order, or similar means the contribution to the POTW by each industrial user to ensure compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. These control mechanisms must have certain conditions as laid out in403.8(f)(l)(iii) and be enforceable; 4. Require the development of compliance schedules where necessary by each industrial user for the installation oftechnology required to meet applicable pretreatment standards and requirements, and submission of all notices and self-monitoring reports to assess and ensure compliance; 5. Carry out all inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements independent of information submitted by the industrial user (this will include authority to enter the premises ofthe industrial user); 6. Obtain remedies for noncompliance (e.g., injunctive relief, penalties); 7. Comply with confidentiality requirements.
Further at a minimum, the POTW must have procedures to:
1. Identify and locate all possible industrial users which might be subject to the POTW pretreatment program; 2. Identify the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by the industrial users; 3. Notify industrial users of applicable pretreatment standards and applicable requirements under section 204(b) and 405 ofthe Clean Water Act and subtitles C and Dof RCRA; 4. Receive and analyze self monitoring reports; 5. Conduct sampling, inspections and other surveillance activities to determine compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements independent of information supplied by the industrial user; 6. Investigate instances of noncompliance; and 7. Comply with public participation, including public notice annually of industrial users determined to be in significant noncompliance during the previous 12- month period.

8ElY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 153Special Conditions 

### Chapter 8

Also, as part ofthe POTW pretreatment program, POTWs must have adequate resources and funding to implement the program, evaluate the need for local limits and develop them ifthe need exists, and develop an enforcement response plan.
The permit requires the POTW to submit the program documentation which details the authority and procedures to be implemented along with other information about the program as laid out in40 CFR 403.9. The permit will allow the POTW up to one year from the time the permitting authority determines the need for a pretreatment program exists to develop and submit a program for approval. Once the permitting authority reviews and approves the program, the program isthen incorporated into the permit inorder to make the requirement to implement the program an enforceable part ofthe permit.
The incorporation ofthe requirement to develop a pretreatment isgenerally done atthe time of reissuance ofthe permit. However, the requirement may also be incorporated through a modification ofthe permit ifcause exists. Cause exists ifI’... the addition of pollutants into POTW by an industrial user or combination of industrial users presents asubstantial hazard to the functioning ofthe treatment works, quality ofthe receiving waters, human health, orthe environment,” (40 CFR 403.8(e)(l)). A permit modification to require the development ofa pretreatment program is considered a major modification and must follow the procedures in40 CFR 122.62.
The incorporation of an approved program into the permit, thereby making the implementation ofthe program an enforceable part ofthe permit, isconsidered a minor modification tothe permit and must follow the procedures in40 CFR 122.63(g). During the life ofthe permit itmay be necessary for the POTW to modify its approved pretreatment program (changes to local limits, changes to the ordinance, etc.). These changes may be brought about bythe POTW’s desire to change the way the program operates, orthey may be the result of changes that are necessary to address deficiencies inthe program found during inspections or audits done by the permitting authority. Whatever the reason for the modification, these modifications to the approved program require review and approval by the permitting authority (Approval Authority) when the modifications are considered substantial, per 40 CFR 403.18. All approved substantial program modifications to the POTW’s approved pretreatment program require minor modifications to the permit.

154-8EfYI NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial Condltlons 

### Chapter 8
Regulatory Update Asof December 1996, there aretwo proposed regulations that may impact the permitting requirements for POlWs with pretreatment programs. First isthe regulation that defines asubstantial pretreatment program modification. EPA is reconsidering the definition ofwhat isasubstantial modification. EPA has proposed toshorten the list and thereby reduce the need for minor permit modifications. Second, EPA has proposed a new regulation for POTWs to apply for NPDES permits. The current regulations require POTWs tosubmit an evaluation ofthe need for local limits with their NPDES permit application. The proposed regulation would require the evaluation to besubmitted afterthe permit has been reissued. Therefore the permit will need to have language included that implements this requirement.
Most ofthe POTWs who need pretreatment program requirements in their permits currently have them in place. EPA Regions and approved States have developed standard pretreatment development or implementation conditions (with minor modifications made to tailor the conditions tothe specific permittee) that are placed in all pretreatment POTW NPDES permits inthat Region or State. The permit writer can obtain examples ofthese NPDES pretreatment conditions from the EPA or State pretreatment coordinators. The permit writer may need to update or modify pretreatment implementation language or initiate corrective action related to the pretreatment program.
A NPDES State or an EPA Region will often designate a pretreatment coordinator to serve as the pretreatment expert to review the annual report from the POTW and recommend any action to be taken. The State or EPA Regional pretreatment coordinator isa key resource on pretreatment issues, particularly atthe time of NPDES permit reissuance. EPA has prepared a number of guidance manuals for POTWs on how to implement their local pretreatment programs.
Pretreatment program information 

### andmonitoring data obtained through the POTW’s pretreatment program may be useful to the permit writer in identifying possible modifications to the pretreatment program’s local limits or procedures, orthe need for water quality-based controls. Although there iscurrently no requirement for chemical-specific toxics effluent monitoring to be submitted with the permit application, most pretreatment POTWs have performed toxics monitoring oftheir influent, effluent, and sludge. The permit writer should obtain such data with the aid ofthe pretreatment coordinator. These data can be used to determine the need for water quality-based limits.

&EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 155Special Conditions 

### Chapter 8

8.3.2 Municipal SewageSludge Section 405(d) ofthe CWA requires that EPA regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge to protect public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects ofthese practices. Inthe CWA, Congress directs EPA to develop technical standards for municipal sludge use and disposal options. These standards are set out in40 CFR Part 503. Congress also enacted strict deadlines for compliance with these standards. Within 1year of promulgation ofthe standards, compliance was required unless construction of new pollution control facilities was necessary, inwhich case compliance was required within 2years.
EPA promulgated the 40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge on February 19, 1993 (58 FR 9248) with amendments on February 19, 1994 (59 FR 9095) and October 25, 1995 (60 FR 54764). These regulations address four sludge use and disposal practices: land application, surface disposal, incineration, and disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill. The standards for each end use and disposal method consist of general requirements, numeric pollutant limits, operational standards, and management practices, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Unlike technology standards based on the ability oftreatment technologies to reduce the level of pollutants, EPA’s sewage sludge standards are based on health and environmental risks.
40 CFR Part 503 imposes requirements on four groups:

. Persons who prepare sewage sludge or material derived from sewage sludge

. Land appliers of sewage sludge

l Owners/operators of sewage sludge surface disposal sites

l Owners/operators of sewage sludge incinerators.
The regulation is largely self-implementing. This means that anyone engaged in activities covered by the regulation must comply with the appropriate requirements on or before the compliance deadlines. A person who violates 40 CFR Part 503 requirements is subject to administrative, civil, and/or criminal enforcement actions.

156-88ER9NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial Conditions 

### Chapter 8

Section 405(f) ofthe CWA requires the inclusion of sewage sludge use or disposal requirements in any NPDES permit issued to aTreatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS) and authorizes the issuance of sewage sludge permits to non-discharging TWTDS. To provide a mechanism for this inclusion, EPA promulgated revisions to the NPDES permit regulations at40 CFR Parts 122 and 124 on May 2, 1989 (54 FR 18716). These revisions expanded EPA’s authority to include sewage sludge use and disposal standards in NPDES permits and to issue NPDES permits to treatment works that do not have an effluent discharge to waters ofthe United States, but are involved in sewage sludge use or disposal as preparers, appliers, or owners/operators. TWTDS includes all sewage sludge generators and facilities that change the quality ofsewage sludge such as blenders.
EPA recognizes that implementation of40 CFR Part 503 requirements is a source ofconfusion for permit writers and permittees who may already have NPDES permits with sewage sludge special conditions. The end result isthat both NPDES sludge permit conditions and 40 CFR Part 503 requirements apply. EPA expects that over time, all NPDES sludge requirements will be revised to include the 40 CFR Part 503 requirements. To reduce confusion, EPA has provided several guidance documents to explain the requirements of40 CFR Part 503.

. Part 503 Implementation Guidance.57

. Land Application of Sewage Sludge-A Guide for Land Appliers on the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ofthe Federal Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge Management in 40 CFR Part 503?

. 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 in40 CFR Part 503.5g

5’USEPA (1995). Part 503 lmplementafion Guidance. EPA 833-R-95-001. Office ofWater. ‘*USEPA (1994). 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-93-002c. Office ofWater. 5gUSEPA (1994). Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge-A Guide for Owner/Operators of Surface Disposal Facilities on the Monitoring, Record Keeping, and Reporting Requirements ofthe Federal Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge in 40 CFR Part 503. EPA-831/B-93-002b. Office of Water. GHY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 157Speclal Condltlons 

### Chapter 8

. Preparing Sewage Sludge for Land Application or Surface Disposal-A Guide for Preparers of Sewage Sludge on the Monitoring, Record Keeping, and Reporting Requirements ofthe Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge in40 CFR Part 503.60

. Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance, A Guide to the EPA 503 Rule.”

. Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge.62
The permit writer should refer to the Part 503 Implementation Guidance63 and EPA Region and State guidelines or policies for instructions on how to implement the applicable 40 CFR Part 503 standards into the permit. The permit writer will need to determine the type of sludge use or disposal practice(s) used by the permittee and apply the appropriate 40 CFR Part 503 standards. In general, conditions will need to be established to address:

. Pollutant concentrations or loading rates

. Operational standards (such as pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements for land application and surface disposal and total hydrocarbons (THC) concentrations for incinerators)

. Management practices (e.g., siting restrictions, design requirements, operating practices)

. Monitoring requirements (e.g., pollutants to be monitored, sampling locations, frequency, and sample collection and analytical methods)

. Recordkeeping requirements
l Reporting requirements (e.g., contents of reports and frequency or due dates for submission of reports)

l General requirements (e.g., specific notification requirements prior to land application, submission of closure and post closure plan for surface disposal sites).

‘%SEPA (1993). Preparing Sewage Sludge for Land Application or Surface Disposal--A Guide for Preparers of Sewage Sludge on the Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Repotfing Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge in 40 CFR Part 503. EPA831/B-93-002a. Office ofWater. “USEPA (1993). Domestic Septage Regulatory GuidanceA Guide to the EPA 503 Rule. EPA832/B-92-005. Office ofWater. “USEPA (1992). Con&V of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge. EfA-625/R-92- 013. Office of Research and Development. ‘?JSEPA (1995). fart 503 implementation Guidance. EPA 833-R-95-001. Office ofWater. 158-8EF# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpecial Condtilons 

### Chapter 8 In addition to any specific applicable 40 CFR Part 503 standards, three boilerplate conditions must be written inthe NPDES permit: (1) language requiring the POTW/TWTDS to comply with all existing requirements for sludge use and disposal, including the 40 CFR Part 503 standards, (2) a reopener clause, which authorizes reopening a permit to include technical standards ifthe technical standards are more stringent or more comprehensive than the conditions 

### inthe permit, and (3) a notification provision requiring the permittee to give notice to the permitting authority when asignificant change inthe sludge use or disposal practice occurs (or is planned). Ifpermit conditions based on existing regulations are insufficient to protect public health and the environment from adverse effects that may occur from toxic pollutants in sewage sludge, permit conditions should be developed on a case-by-case basis using BPJ to fulfill the statutory requirement. EPA’s Part 503 Implementation Guidance(j4 contains information to assist permit writers in developing pollutant limits and management practice requirements on acase-by-case basis to protect public health and the environment from adverse effects that may occur from toxic pollutants in sewage sludge. 

### 8.3.3 Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) Combined sewer systems are designed to collect both sanitary and industrial wastewater and storm water runoff. During dry weather, combined sewers carry sanitary wastes and industrial discharges to atreatment plant. In periods of heavy rainfall, however, the combined storm water runoff and untreated sanitary sewage, including industrial wastewater, can overflow and discharge this untreated wastewater directly to awater body. These overflows are called combined sewer overflows (CSOS).
On April 19, 1994, EPA published aCSO Control Policy inthe Federal Register (59 FR 18688) which represents acomprehensive national strategy to ensure that municipalities, permitting authorities, water quality standards authorities, and the public engage in acomprehensive and coordinated planning effort to achieve cost effective CSO controls that ultimately meet appropriate health and environmental objectives.

%SEPA (1995). Part 503 implementation Guidance. EPA 833-R-95-001. Office ofWater. 8EFY4NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 159Special Condtilons 

### Chapter 8

CSOs are point source discharges subject to both the technology-based requirements ofthe CWA and to applicable State water quality standards. Under the CWA, CSOs must comply with the BAT for nonconventional and toxic pollutants and BCT for conventional pollutants. However, there are no promulgated BAT/BCT effluent guidelines and limitations for CSOs. As a result, permit writers must use BPJ in developing technology-based permit requirements for controlling CSOs. In addition, permit conditions must achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards.
The 1994 CSO Control Policy contains the recommended approach for developing and issuing NPDES permits to control CSOs. In addition, EPA has developed the following guidance documents to help permit writers and permittees implement the CSO Control Policy:

l Combined Sewer Ovetflo ws-Guidance for Long- Term Control Plan.65

. Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls.66

l Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Screening and Ranking.=?

l Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling.=’

l Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Uevelopment.69

. Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Funding Options.70

l Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Permit Writers.”

?JSEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan. EPA832/B-95-002. ?JSEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls. EPA832/B-95-003. “USEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Screening and Ranking. EPA-832/B95-004. 68USEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling. (DRAFT). EPA-832/B-95-005. “gUSEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development (DRAFT). EPA-832/B-95-006. “USEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Funding Options. EPA-832/B-95-007. “USEPA (1995). Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Permit Writers. EPA-832/B-95-008. 160-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpeclal Ccmditlons 

### Chapter 8

Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Permit Writers contains guidance, and example permit language that the permit writer can use. Because the control of CSCs typically requires substantial long-term planning, construction, financing and continuous reassessment, the implementation of CSO controls will probably occur over several permit cycles. The Combined Sewer Overflows-Guidance for Permit Writers explains a phased permitting approach to CSOs. Exhibit 8-1 depicts this phased permitting approach and the types of permitting conditions that should be developed for each phase. Depending on the particular permittee’s situation, a permit may contain both Phase Iand Phase IIelements. The initial permit conditions for CSOs, called Phase Ipermit requirements, should address:

. Implementation oftechnology-based CSO controls as soon as possible but no later than January 1, 1997. The policy describes nine CSO control measures that may be considered minimum BAT/BCT, based on the permit writer’s BPJ. Exhibit 8-2 shows the nine minimum controls (NMC).

. Development of aCSO Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) generally within 2 years of permit issuance. The policy describes the minimum elements which the LTCP should address. Exhibit 8-3 shows those minimum elements.

The second round of NPDES permits to control CSOs, called Phase II,will contain specific permit conditions addressing continued implementation ofthe NMC and implementation ofthe selected long-term CSO control measures identified inthe LTCP. The permit writer will need to review the permittee’s LTCP and consult with other staff involved inthe CSO control process and the permittee to determine the appropriate permit conditions. Water quality-based controls will be expressed as narrative requirements and performance standards for the combined sewer system. Finally, post Phase IIpermit conditions would address continued implementation ofthe NMC, long-term CSO controls, and post-construction compliance monitoring. There may also be numeric water quality-based effluent limits when sufficient data exists to support their development.

88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 161

## EXHIBIT 8-l Categories of CSO Permitting Conditions

Tie (yrs) 0

.................... 5

................10

............> NPDES Permit A. Technology-Based B. WaterQuality-Based

C. Monitoring PhaseI PhaseII PostPhaseII

l NMC, ataminimum l NMC, ataminimum l NMC, ataminimum

l Narrative l Narrative +perfonnance- l Narrative +performancebasedstandards basedstandards+ numeric waterqualitybasedeffluent limits (as appropriate)

l Characterization,

. Monitoring toevaluate l Post-construction monitoring, andmodeling waterquality impacts compliance monitoring of css . Monitoring todetermine effectiveness ofCSO controls. D. Reporting l Documentation of NMC implementation

l Interim LTCP deliverables. l Implementation ofCSO

. Report results ofpostcontrols (both NMC and construction compliance long-term controls) monitoring

E. Special Conditions l Prohibition ofdry weatheroverflows (DWO)

l Development of LTCP. l Prohibition of DWO

l Implementation of LTCP

l Reopenerclausefor water quality standards violations l Prohibition of DWO

. Reopenerclausefor waterquality standards violations.

l Sensitive area reassessment.

162-8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpeclal Coftdtlons 

### Chaptw 8


## EXHIBIT 8-2 Nine Minimum CSO Controls 1. Proper operation andregular maintenance programs for thesewer system andtheCSOs 2. Maximum useofthecollection systemfor storage 3. Review and modification of pretreatment requirements toensurethat CSO impacts are minimized 4. Maximization of flow tothePOTW for treatment 5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather 6. Control of solid andfloatable materials in CSOs 7. Establishment of pollution prevention programs 8. Public notification toensurethatthepublic receives adequatenotification of CSO occurrences andCSO impacts 9. Monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts andtheefficacy of CSO controls. 

## EXHIBIT 8-3 Elements ofthe Long-Term CSO Control Plan 1. Characterization, monitoring, andmodeling ofthecombined sewer system 2. Public participation 3. Consideration of sensitive areas 4. Evaluation of alternatives 5. Cost/performance considerations 6. Operational plan 7. Maximizing treatment attheexisting POTW treatment plant 8. Implementation schedule 9. Post-construction compliance monitoring program.
In developing permit requirements to meet technology-based requirements and applicable State water quality standards, the permit writer in conjunction with staff involved inwater quality standards and the permittee, should identify the appropriate site-specific considerations that will determine the CSO conditions to be established in the permit. EPA believes that the following information will be particularly relevant in developing the appropriate conditions:

&BY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 163Speclal Conditions 

### Chapter 8

l CSO Discharge

- Flow, frequency, and duration ofthe CSO discharge

- Available effluent characterization data on the CSO discharge

- Available information and data on the impacts ofthe CSO discharge(s) (e.g., 305(b) reports, ambient survey data, fish kills, 304(l) lists of impaired waters)

- Compliance history ofthe CSO owner, including performance and reliability of any existing CSO controls

- Current NPDES permit and NPDES permit application

- Facility planning information from the permittee which addresses CSOs

. Technologies Performance data (either from the manufacturer orfrom other applications) for various CSO technologies that may be employed, including equipment efficiency and reliability Cost information associated with both the installation, operation and maintenance of CSO technologies Reference materials on various types of CSO technologies (e.g., Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice, American Society of Chemical Engineers publications). 

### 8.3.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflows (RESERVED) 

### 8.3.5 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) The November 16, 1990 (55 FL?47990) storm water application regulations established requirements for atwo-part permit application that allows local governments to assist in defining priority pollutant sources within the municipality and to develop and implement appropriate controls for such discharges to MS4. Part IIof the application required municipal applicants to propose municipal storm water management programs to control pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP) and to effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges to the municipal system. Municipal storm water management programs are a combination of source controls and management practices that address targeted sources within the boundaries ofthe municipal system. For example, a municipality that expects significant new development may focus more on proposing requirements for new development and construction. On the other hand, a municipality that does not expect significant new development may focus more on municipal activities that affect storm water quality
164-86R9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualSpeclal Crmditlons 

### Chap&w8

such as: maintenance of leaking sanitary sewers, road de-icing and maintenance, operation of municipal landfills, flood control efforts, and control of industrial contributions of storm water.
As with any NPDES permit, MS4 pen-nits must assure compliance with applicable technology-based requirements (inthis case, the MEP) as well as applicable water quality standards. However, unlike POTWs where technology-based requirements are defined by secondary treatment standards, and most industrial sources that have promulgated ELGs, there are no promulgated technology-based standards that define MEP. Therefore, permit writers must rely on application requirements specified inthe regulations and the applicants proposed management program when developing appropriate permit conditions. EPA has developed the following guidance document to assist permit writers as well as permittees to implement the Municipal Storm Water Program:

. Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 2 of the NPDES Permit Applications For Discharge From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Sysfems.‘*

“USEPA (1992). Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 2of the NPDES Permit Application for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. EPA-833/B-92-002. Office of Water. 8EH4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 165

# Chapter 9

Standard Conditions of NPDES Permits

This chapter describes standard conditions, sometimes called “boilerplate” conditions, that consist of pre-established conditions that must be incorporated into every permit. The standard conditions set out in40 CFR §§122.41 and 122.42 play an important supporting role to the numeric permit limits because these conditions delineate the legal, administrative, and procedural requirements ofthe permit. Standard conditions may be inserted verbatim from the regulations or incorporated into the permit by specific reference to the regulations. Standard conditions cover various topics, including definitions, testing procedures, records retention, notification requirements, penalties for noncompliance, and permittee responsibilities.
The use of standard conditions helps ensure uniformity and consistency of all NPDES permits issued by authorized States or EPA Regional offices. The permit writer needs to be aware ofthe contents ofthe standard conditions because itmay often be necessary to explain portions ofthese conditions to a permittee. The permit writer should also keep abreast of any changes in EPA’s standard conditions set out in 40 CFR §122.41 as statutes or regulations are revised periodically.

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 167Standard Conditions of NPDES Permits Chapter9

9.1 Types of Standard Conditions A brief discussion of each of EPA’s standard conditions for NPDES permits follows:

•

•

•

• Duty to Comply [40 CFR §122.41(a)] -The permittee must comply with all conditions of the permit. Noncompliance is a violation of the CWA and is grounds for injunctive relief, substantial monetary penalties, incarceration, changes or terminations to the permit, or denial of permit renewal. Duty to Reapply [40 CFR §122.41(b)] -If a permittee, after the expiration of its permit, desires to continue its activities, it must reapply for and obtain a new permit. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense [40 CFR §122.41(c)] - The permittee may not use as a defense the reasoning that compliance could only be achieved by halting or reducing the permitted activity. Duty to Mitigate [40 CFR §122.41(d)] -The permittee is required to take all reasonable steps to prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. Proper Operation and Maintenance [40 CFR §122.41(e)] -The permittee must properly operate and maintain all equipment and treatment systems used by the permittee for compliance with the terms of the permit. The permittee must provide appropriate laboratory controls and quality assurance procedures. Backup systems are required when needed to ensure compliance. However, each main line unit treatment process must be operated as a minimum. •

•

•

•

• Permit Actions [40 CFR §122.41(f)] -The permit may be modified, revoked, reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a modification, revocation, reissuance, termination, or notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not halt any permit condition, Property Rights [40 CFR §122.41(g)] -The permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. Duty to Provide Information [40 CFR §122.41(h)] -The permittee must transmit any information needed to determine compliance with the permit or to modify the permit. Inspection and Entry [40 CFR §122.41(i)] -The permittee must, upon presentation of valid credentials by the Director or his representative, allow entry into the premises where the regulated activity and/or records are present. The Director must have access to and be able to make copies of any required records, inspect facilities, practices, operations, and equipment, and sample or monitor at reasonable times.

168 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualStandard Conditions of NPDES Permits 

### Chtptw 9

.

l Monitoring and Records [40 CFR §122.4l(j)]-Samples must be representative ofthe monitored activity. Records must be retained for 3 years (5 years for sludge activities) subject to extension by the Director. Monitoring records must identify the sampling dates and personnel, the sample location and time, and the analytical techniques used and corresponding results. Wastewater and sludge measurements must be conducted inaccordance with 40 CFR Parts 136 or 503 or other specified procedures. Falsification of results isaviolation. Signatory and Certification Requirements [40 CFR 5122.41 (k)]- Applications, reports, or information submitted to the Director must be signed and certified. Knowingly making false statements, representations, or certifications issubject to penalties. Planned Changes [40 CFR gl22.41(1)(1)]-Notice must be given to the Director as soon as possible ofany planned physical alterations and/or additions to the facility. Thisnotice is required ifthe facility changes to meet the criteria for a new source or the nature and concentration of pollutants are affected. Anticipated Noncompliance [40 CFR §122.41(i)(P)]-The permittee must give advance notice of any conditions that may result in noncompliance. Permit Transfers [40 CFR §122.41(1)(3)]-The permit is not transferable except after written notice to the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance, as necessary. Monitoring Reports 140CFR §122.41(1)(4)]-Reports must be submitted on a DMR or on a Director-specified form for sludge use/disposal practices. In addition, more frequent monitoring must be reported. Calculations requiring averaging must use an arithmetic mean, except for fecal coliform. Monitoring results must be reported at the frequency specified inthe permit. Compliance Schedules [40 CFR §122.41(1)(5)]-Reports required by a compliance schedule inthe permit must be submitted within 14 days ofthe due date. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting [40 CFR §122.4l(i)(b)]-The permittee must report any noncompliance that may endanger human health or the environment within 24 hours after becoming aware ofthe circumstance. Within 5 days, the permittee must provide awritten submission containing the information outlined in40 CFR §122.41(1)(6)(ii) unless the requirement iswaived by the permitting authority. Other Noncompliance [40 CFR 5122.41 (i)(7)]-The permittee must report all instances of noncompliance not reported under other specific reporting requirements atthe time monitoring reports are submitted. Other information [40 CFR §122.41(1)(8)]-Where the permittee becomes aware that itfailed to submit any relevant facts in its application, or submitted incorrect information in its application or other reports, itmust promptly submit such information.
8Bi# NPDES Permtt Writers’ Manual - 169Standard Conditions of NPDES Permits 

### Chap&r 9

a Bypass [40 CFR 9122.41 (m)]-Intentional diversions of untreated waste streams from any portion ofatreatment facility are prohibited unless (I) the bypass does not cause effluent to exceed limits, and (2) the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and there was no feasible alternatives, and the proper notification was submitted.

l Upset 140CFR §122.4l(n)+An upset can be used as an affirmative defense in actions brought to the permittee for noncompliance. The permittee (who has the burden of proof) must have operational logs or other evidence that shows (1) when the upset occurred and its causes, (2) that the facility was being operated properly, (3) proper notification was made, and (4) remedial measures were taken. 

## 9.2 Other Standard Conditions In addition to standard conditions specified in40 CFR s122.41, 40 CFR $122.42 sets forth additional conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits. These conditions include:

. Existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural dischargers must notify EPA as soon as they know or have reason to believe that the discharge has or will exceed notification levels set forth in 40 CFR 5122.42(a).

. POTWs must provide adequate notice to EPA for new introduction of pollutants into the POTW, for substantial changes inthe volume or character of pollutants, and related information specified in 40 CFR $122.42(b). 0 Large, medium or EPA-designated municipal separate storm sewer systems 

### mustsubmit an annual report addressing the status, and changes to, the storm water management program, water quality data and other information specified in40 CFR 5122.42(c).

170-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Chapter 10

Variances toPermit Requirements andOther Regulatory Considerations

To address unique permitting situations, the CWA and NPDES regulations allow permit writers to grant variances under certain prescribed conditions. These variances may apply to either technology-based or water quality-based regulatory requirements. The variances available under the NPDES Program are described below.
The NPDES Program has also established certain requirements to ensure that NPDES permits address the statutory and regulatory requirements of other environmental programs. The permit writer should be aware ofthese other programs in developing permit conditions, and work with the regulatory agencies that oversee these programs. Section 10.3 describes these considerations. 

## 10.1 Variances toTechnology-Based Permit Requirements In addition to specifying national goals for water pollution control, the CWA provides a mechanism for modification ofthe technology-based requirements ofthe CWA for exceptional cases. These modifications are called variances. Very specific data requirements must be met by an applicant before avariance may be granted. As
EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -171Chapter 10 Variances to Permit Requirements and Other Regulatory Considerations
the term implies, a variance is the unusual situation, and the permit writer should not expect to routinely receive variance requests. Nevertheless, the permit writer should be aware of the major types of variances and the basic requirements for each, because the permit writer will most likely be the person to conduct the initial reviews of such requests before submitting them for review to the State Director (if applicable), the EPA Regional office, and EPA Headquarters. The permit writer should consult 40 CFR §124.62 for the procedures for decisions on the various types of variances.
With one exception (fundamentally different factors variance), a variance request must be submitted before the close of the public comment period of the permit. The following paragraphs discuss variances and the factors that should be considered in a technical review of the variance request.
10.1.1 Economic Variances Section 301(c) of the CWA provides for a variance for nonconventional pollutants from BAT-based effluent limitations due to economic factors. Note that there are no implementing regulations for §301(c); rather, variance requests must be made and reviewed based on the statutory language in CWA §301(c). The variance may also apply to non-guideline limits in accordance with 40 CFR §122.21(m)(2)(ii). The request for the variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines is normally filed by the discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other filing time periods may apply, as specified in 40 CFR §122.21(m)(2). The application must show that the modified requirements:

• Represent the maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or operator; and • Will result in further progress toward the no discharge goal.
The methodologies for determining economic capability for utilities is different than that used for other industries. Utilities should perform two financial calculations. Generally, EPA will only grant avariance if both tests indicate that the pollution control equipment is not economically achievable and the applicant can demonstrate “reasonable further progress.” Other industry categories must calculate three financial tests to determine ifthey are eligible on economic grounds for a 301(c) variance.

172 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 Guidance for conducting these financial tests isavailable from EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management. Generally, EPA will only grant avariance ifall three tests indicate that the required pollution control is not economically achievable and the appiicant makes the requisite demonstration about “reasonable further progress.”
With respect to the second requirement for a 301(c) modification (reasonable further progress toward the no-discharge goal), the applicant must, at a minimum, demonstrate compliance with all applicable BPT limitations and pertinent water quality standards. In addition, the proposed alternative must provide for a reasonable degree of improvement inthe applicant’s discharge. 

### 10.1.2 Variances Based on Localized Environmental Factors Section 301(g) ofthe CWA provides for avariance for certain nonconventional pollutants from BAT effluent guidelines due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols. The discharger must file avariance application that meets the following requirements:

. The modified requirements must result incompliance with BPT and water quality standards ofthe receiving stream.

. No additional treatment will be required of other point or nonpoint source dischargers as a result ofthe variance approval.

. The modified requirements will not interfere with attainment or maintenance ofwater quality to protect public water supplies, or with protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildfowl, and will allow recreational activities in and on the water. Also, the modified requirements will not result inquantities of pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, cause acute or chronic toxicity, or promote synergistic properties.
The permit writer should review the request to ensure that itcomplies with each ofthe requirements for this type ofvariance. This variance request involves a great deal ofwater quality assessment, including aquatic toxicity, mixing zone and dilution model analysis, and possible site-specific criterion development. In addition, many complex human health effects must be assessed, including carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, bioaccumulation, and synergistic propensities. All permit

&ERRNPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 173

### Chapter 10 Variancesto Permit Requirements and OtherRegulatory Considerations writers should use the EPA draft 301(g) technical guidance manual to assess a completed variance request. Typical industries that have applied for 301(g) variances include Iron and Steel Manufacturing, Steam Electric Power Generating, Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing, Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing, Aluminum Forming, and Pesticides Manufacturing facilities. 

### 10.1.3 Marine Discharge Variances Section 301(h) ofthe CWA provides for variances from secondary treatment standards for POTVVs that discharge into marine waters ifthe modified requirements do not interfere with the attainment or maintenance ofwater quality. EPA has promulgated specific regulations pertaining to CWA $301(h) that are provided in 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G.
All 301(h) modified permits must contain the following specific permit conditions:

. Effluent limitations and mass loadings that will assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G

. Compliance schedules for pretreatment program development, a nonindustrial toxics control program, and control of combined sewer overflows 0 Monitoring program requirements that include biomonitoring, water quality, and effluent monitoring

. Reporting requirements that include the results ofthe monitoring programs. Also, no new or substantially increased discharges from the point source ofthe affected pollutant can be released above that volume of discharge specified inthe permit.
EPA has developed several guidance manuals related to 301(h) variances, including the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document.73

‘?JSEPA (1982). Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document. EPA-430/9-82-011. Office ofWater.
174-88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Vartames to Permit Requirements and



### OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 

### 10.1.4 Fundamentally Different Factors Variances Section 301(n) ofthe CWA provides for variances based upon fundamentally different factors (FDF) for BAT and BCT pollutants while 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart D provides the regulatory authority for BPT variances. FDF variances for direct dischargers are available from effluent limitations guidelines for toxic, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants ifthe individual facility isfound to be fundamentally different from the factors considered inestablishing the effluent guidelines. There is no FDF variance allowed from NSPS. The FDF variance for BPT must be filed by the close ofthe public comment period under 40 CFR g124.10. The FDF variance for BAT or BCT must be requested by the discharger within 180 days ofthe guideline promulgation. Where a FDF variance request is approved, calculated alternative limits cannot be any less stringent than justified by the fundamental difference and cannot cause violations ofwater quality standards.
Factors needed tojustify a BPT FDF variance must be related to a discharger’s facilities, equipment, processes, and compliance cost that are different from those considered inthe development ofthe guidelines. Factors for BAT and BCT variance requests are similar except that cost cannot be considered. Additional factors that cannot be considered for any FDF variance request include the feasibility of installing the necessary treatment within the given time frame, aclaim that the limits cannot be achieved with the given technology (unless supported with data), the discharger’s ability to pay, or the impact on local receiving water quality. The review or proposal of an FDF variance iscompleted on a case-by-case basis. The burden of proof lies with the entity requesting the variance. 

### 10.1.5 Thermal Discharge Variances Section 316(a) ofthe CWA provides for variances from effluent limitations for the thermal component of a discharge. Regulations for submitting and reviewing thermal discharge variance requests are promulgated at40 CFR Part 125, Subpart I-l. Less stringent alternative thermal effluent limits may be included in permits ifthe discharger demonstrates that such effluent limits are more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish and wildlife inand on the body ofwater into which the discharge is



### 06% NPDESPermitWriters’ Manual-175

### Chapter 10 VariancestoPermit Requirements and 

### OtherRegulatory Considerations made, taking into account the cumulative impact of itsthermal discharge together with all other significant impacts on the species affected. 

### 10.1.6 Net Credits In some cases, solely as a result ofthe level of pollutants inthe intake water, facilities are faced with situations inwhich technology-based limits are difficult or impossible to meet with BAT/BCT technology. Under certain circumstances, the NPDES regulations allow credit for pollutants in intake water. The following requirements have been established in40 CFR 5122.45(g) for establishing net limitations:

l Credit for generic pollutants, such as BOD, or TSS, are only authorized where the constituents resulting inthe effluent BOD, and the TSS are similar between the intake water and the discharge.

l Credit isonly authorized up to the extent necessary to meet the applicable limitation or standard, with a maximum value equal to the inffuent concentration.

. Intake water must be taken from the same body ofwater into which the discharge is made.

l Net credits do not apply to the discharge of raw water clarifier sludge generated during the treatment of intake water. Permit writers are authorized to grant net credits for the quantity of pollutants in the intake water where the applicable effluent guidelines specify that the guidelines are to be applied on a net basis or where the pollution control technology would, if properly installed and operated, meet applicable effluent guidelines limitations and standards inthe absence ofthe pollutants inthe intake waters, 

## 10.2 Variances toWater Quality-Based Permit Requirements Several types ofvariances exist that may change the fundamental basis of water quality-based effluent limitations, specifically:

l Site-specific water quality criteria modification,

. Designated use reclassification, and

. Water quality standard variance. Each ofthese variances are described below.
176-8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit 

### Requirementsand

Other

### RegulatoryConsiderations Chapter 10 

### 10.2.1 Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria Modification Section 304(a) ofthe CWA recommends procedures for States to develop water quality criteria. The State does have the option of modifying water quality criteria on a site-specific basis. Setting site-specific criteria may be appropriate where background water quality parameters, such as pH, hardness, temperature, and color appear to differ significantly from the laboratory water used to develop the CWA 5304(a) criteria; orthe types of local aquatic organisms differ significantly from those actually tested in developing the CWA $304(a) criteria. Modifications change water quality criteria permanently, while maintaining the existing designated uses. 

### 10.2.2 Designated UseReclassification Once a use has been designated for a particular water body or segment, the water body or water body segment cannot be reclassified for a different use except under specific conditions. To remove adesignated use, as specified inSection 101{a)(2) ofthe CWA, the State must perform a use attainability analysis pursuant to 40 CFR 5131 .lO(j). The Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second E~Iition’~ discusses use attainability analyses in greater detail. Redassifying awater body causes a permanent change inthe water quality standard for that water body. 

### 10.2.3 Water Quality Standard Variance Water quality standard variances require similar substantive and procedural requirements as removing a designated use, but unlike use removal, variances are both discharger and pollutant specific, are time-limited, and do not forego the currently designated use of awater body. Avariance isappropriate where the State believes that the standard can be ultimately attained. By maintaining the standard rather than changing it,the State will assure that further progress is made in improving the water quality and attaining the standard. State-adopted variances have been approved by EPA where, among other things, the State demonstrates, consistent with 40 CFR Part 131, that meeting the standard is unattainable based on one or more ofthe grounds outlined in40 CFR §131.1O(g). The variance is granted for a specified period oftime

“USEPA (1994). WaferQuality Standards Handbook: Second Edition. EPA823-B-94-005a. Office ofWater.
68# NPDES Permit Writers Manual - 177

### Chapter 10 VarIaneestoPermit Requirements and 

### OtherRegutatoty Consickratlons and rejustified at least every 3years as reasonable progress is made toward meeting the standards.
Modifications of orvariances to water quality standards have several effects on permit limits. Specifically, these variances change the fundamental basis ofwater quality-based effluent limits, potentially impacting the reasonable potential determination and possibly resulting in more or less stringent limitations. It isthe permit writer’s responsibility to ensure that the variance is properly reflected inthe NPDES permit. 

## 10.3 Additional Programmatic Considerations and Requirements This section addresses additional programmatic requirements that must be considered during permit development. These requirements include anti-backsliding and compliance with other Federal laws. 

### 10.3.1 Anti-Backsliding In general, the term “anti-backsliding” refers to astatutory provision that prohibits the renewal, reissuance, or modification ofan existing NPDES permit that contains effluents limits, permit conditions, or standards that are less stringent than those established inthe previous permit. There are, however, exceptions to the prohibition-determining the applicability and circumstances ofthe exceptions requires afamiliarity with both the statutory and regulatory language that addresses the issue of “anti-backsliding.”
Section 402(o) ofthe Clean Water Act establishes express statutory language prohibiting the backsliding of effluent limitations. Section 402(o)+consists of three main parts. First, section 402(o)(l) prohibits (subject to exceptions insections 303(d)(4) and/or 402(o)(2)) the relaxation of effluent limitations for two situations: 

## (1) When a permittee seeks to revise atechnology-based effluent limitation based on best professionat judgment to reflect asubsequently promulgated effluent guideline which isless stringent, and

178-8e# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 

## (2) When a permittee seeks relaxation of an effluent limitation which is based upon a State treatment standard or water quality standard. 

### Second, Section 402(o)(2) outlines specific exceptions to the general prohibition against establishment of less stringent effluent limitations. Codified inthe NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l), Section 402(o)(2) provided that the establishment of less stringent limits may be allowed where: 

## (1) There have been material and substantial alternations or additions to the permitted facility which justify this relaxation. 

## (2) New information (other than revised regulations, guidance, or test methods) isavailable that was not available at the time of permit issuance which would have justified a less stringent effluent limitation. (3) Technical mistakes or mistaken interpretations ofthe law were made in issuing the permit under Section 402(a)(l)(b). 

## (4 Good cause exists due to events beyond the permittee’s control (e.g., acts of God) and for which there is no reasonably available remedy. 

## (5) The permit has been modified under 40 CFR $122.62, or avariance has been granted. (6) The permittee has installed and properly operated and maintained required treatment facilities but still has been unable to meet the permit limitations (relaxation may only be allowed to the treatment levels actually achieved). Although the statute identified six exceptions where effluent limitations may be relaxed, the language specifically stated that exceptions 3 and 5 (as listed above) do not apply to water quality-based effluent IimitatioIs. Thus, exceptions 3 and 5would only apply to technology-based effluent limitations derived using best professional judgment. 

### Third, Section 402(o)(3) prohibits the relaxation of effluent limitations in all cases ifa revised effluent limitation would result inaviolation of applicable effluent limitation guidelines or water quality standards, including antidegradation requirements. Thus, even ifany ofthe backsliding exceptions outlined in either the statute or


### 8EfM NPDESPermitWriters’ Manual-179

### Variancesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 regulations are applicable and met, Section 402(o)(3) acts as afloor and restricts the extent to which effluent limitations may be relaxed. This requirement affirms existing provisions ofthe CWA that require permit limits, standards, and conditions to ensure compliance with applicable technology-based limits and water quality standards.
EPA’s current regulations which address the issue of anti-backsliding reflect the prohibition imposed by Section 402(o) for the first situation; revision of existing BPJbased permit limitations to reflect subsequently issued effluent guidelines (40 CFR 122.44(l)(2)). However, the regulations have not been revised to reflect the prohibition of backsliding for the second situation: relaxation of effluent limitations established on the basis of Sections 301(b)(l)(C) or 303(d) or (3). EPA believes the water quality provisions must be implemented based upon interpretation ofthe CWA inthe meantime. As such, the remainder ofthe discussion on anti-backsliding provisions will focus on clarifying the intent ofthe statute as it relates to relaxation ofwater qualitybased effluent limitations. Inaddition, 

### Exhibit 10-l provides a graphical interpretation ofthe backsliding provisions as they related to the relaxation ofWQBELs.
EPA has consistently interpreted Section 402(o)(l) ofthe CWA to allow relaxation ofwater quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) ifeither the requirements of Section 402(o)(2) or section 303(d)(4) are met. These two provisions constitute independent exceptions to the prohibition against relaxation of permit limits. Ifeither is met, relaxation is permissible.
Section 303(d)(4) has two parts: paragraph (A) which applies to “nonattainment waters” and paragraph (B) which applies to “attainment waters.”

.

. 

### Non-attainment water-Section 303(d)(4)(A) allows establishment of less stringent WQBEL when the receiving water has been identified as not meeting applicable water quality standards (i.e., a“nonattainment water”), if the permittee meets two conditions. First, the existing WQBEL must have been based on atotal maximum daily load (TMDL) or other wasteload allocation (WLA) established under Section 303. Second, relaxation of a WQBEL isonly allowed ifattainment ofwater quality standards must be ensured. 

### Attainment water-Section 303(d)(4)(8) applies to waters where the water quality equals or exceeds levels necessary to protect the designated use, or to otherwise meet applicable water quality standards (i.e., an “attainment
180-&EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit 

## Requirements and Other

## Regulatory

Considerations Chapter 10



## EXHIBIT 10-l Anti-Backsliding RulesRelatingtoWater Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 

# IIseffluent limitbased onaStatewater qu;alitystandard? 3

Seeexisting regulations 40C.F.R. 122.44(l)

t Yes f

No Yes+



# I Isattainment ofwater I

Revision 

# r not Allowed quality standards assured? (including antidegradation?) 

# &, &iz-,

BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ 

### Manual-181

### Chapter 10 VarIaneestoPermit Requirements and 

### OtherRegutatoty Consickratlons water”). Under Section 303(d)(4)(B), WQBELs may only be relaxed where the action isconsistent with State’s anti-degradation policy.
As previously mentioned, Section 402(o)(2) outlines specific exceptions to the general prohibition against backsliding from WQBELs. These exceptions are independent ofthe Section 303(d)(4) exception discussed above and are also applicable to the backsliding of BPJ limits to reflect subsequently promulgated less stringent guidelines. Finally, all other types of backsliding [for example, backsliding from effluent guideline-derived limits, from new source performance standards, from existing BPJ limits to new BPJ limits, or from water quality-related standards or conditions (except for effluent limitations)] remain unaffected by the 1987 WQA amendments and EPA’s existing regulations at40 CFR 122.44(l)(l) will continue to govern them. This is because Section 402(o) only prohibits the backsliding of “effluent limits,” not other standards or conditions such as monitoring frequency or changes in species or protocol for whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. The relaxation of all other types of standards or conditions contained in a permit are, however, subject to EPA’s existing backsliding regulations at40 CFR 122.41(l)(l). Under these regulations, a permittee must meet a cause for modification in order to allow relaxation.

182-8B# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10

Scenario: Example 1

. A POTW seeks to relax itsWQBEL for pollutant X.

. Current permit limitation isbased onthe TMDL and WLA forthe POTW developed in accordance with 40 CFR 130.7.

. The POTW is incompliance with itsexisting limitation and the applicable water quality standards for pollutant Xis attained.

. The POTW has developed new models with new river flow information, which indicate that the water quality standards for pollutant Xwould be maintained with a relaxed permit limitation.

. May the effluent limitation for pollutant Xbe relaxed? Answer: Possibly. Under the interpretation discussed above, WQBELs may be relaxed where one ofthe exceptions in$402(o)(l) or40 CFR 122.44(l)(2) are met. Inthis case, although new information is being relied onto request the modification, 9402(o)(2) will notjustify the request unless the State reduces the pollutant loadings from other point sources or non-point sources ofpollution. This is because, as discussed above, paragraph 3402(o)(2) restricts the use of new information to cases where there isa decrease inthe amount of pollutants being discharged. The $402(o)(l) exceptions, onthe other hand, mayjustify the request. Inthis case, the paragraph (o)(l) exception that is relevant isthe reference to$303(d)(4)(8). Itprovides that for receiving waters that where water quality standards are attained, permit limitations based on aTMDliWLA orother permit standard may be relaxed only ifaState’s antidegradation policy are met.

Scenario: Example 2

’ The State has established atechnology-based treatment standard forfecal coliform pursuant to $301(W(l NC).

. The State later relaxes this standard.

. A POlW, which has been inviolation ofthis limit, requests arevision of its permit limit forfecal coliform to reflect the new standard.

. Water quality standards forfecal coliform are not being attained.

. Models show that attainment ofwater quality standards will be assured ifthe POTW complies with a revised, relaxed permit limitation forfecal coliform.

. There was noTMDL orWLA performed because the standard was aState technology-based standard.

. May the permit limitation be relaxed? Answer: No. Under §402(0)(1), the applicable provision is§303(d)(4)(A). This subsection does not authorize backsliding inthis case because itonly applies to permit limitations based on aTMDUWLA. Here, the limitation inquestion is based on atype ofState treatment standard. Furthermore, ifthe permit sought to apply the §402(0)(2) exceptions, the new information provision would not allow the revision. New information does not include “revised regulations.”
iiEFY4NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 183

### Chapter 10 VarIaneestoPermit Requirements and OtherRegutatoty Consickratlons

Scenario: Example 3

. The State has anarrative water quality criterion of“notoxics intoxic amounts.”

. On the basis ofWETtesting dataorother information, the Statefinds reasonable potential toexceed the narrative water quality criterion and imposes aWET limitation under 40CFR 122.44(d)(l)(v).

. The permittee determines that pollutant Zisthe cause oftheWET in itsdischarge.

. The permittee can demonstrate through sufficient data (including WETtesting data) that aneffluent limitation forpollutant Zwill assure compliance with the narrative water quality standards aswell asthe State’s numeric criteria forpollutant Zas required by40CFR 12244(d)(l)(v).

. May the State modify the permit todelete the WET limitation andtoaddthe limitation forpollutant Z? Answer: 5303(d)(4) mayjustify this action. The applicable provision of$303(d)(4) is5303(d)(4)(8) because the narrative water quality standards iscurrently attained. (The permittee iscurrently complying with the existing WET limitation toattain and maintain the State’s narrative water quality standards.) Under 3303(d)(4)(8), the permittee may backslide solong asantidegradation requirements will be met,and the relaxed limitation will notcause aviolation ofany effluent limitations guidelines and water quality standards applicable tothe discharge. Inthis case, this appears likely because the discharger can demonstrate that the new limitation forpollutant Zwill assure compliance with applicable narrative aswell as numeric water quality standards.

Scenario: Example 4

. An industrial permittee seeks to revise itsWQBEL of 1000mg/LforTSS to6000 mg/L, itsactual discharge level.

. The current permit limitation isbased upon aTMDL and WLAforthe permittee, which were developed inaccordance with 40CFR 130.7.

. The water quality standards forTSS are notbeing attained.

. Apermit limit of6000 mgR isconsistent with applicable effluent guidelines.

. New modeling infom-ration shows that thewater quality standards forTSS will beattained with apermit limitation of4000 mg/L.

. May the permit limitation be revised from 1000 mg/Lto6000 mg/L? Answer: No. However, the permit limitation could be relaxed to4000 mg/L under either 9402(o)(l) orthe $402(o)(2) exceptions. The water quality standards forTSS isnotcurrently being attained. Therefore, under 9lO2(0)(1), the applicable exception is3303(d)(4)(A). Inthis case,the permitting authority mayallow backsliding to4000 mg/L because the existing effluent limitation isbased upon aTMDlJWLA andthe data shows that attainment ofthewater quality standards isassured with apermit limitation of4000 mg/L (but notwith a limitation of6000 mg/L). Alternatively, under 5402(o)(2), new information can be relied onto relax permit limitations where there isa reduction inpollutant loadings and, pursuant to3402(o)(3), where water quality standards arecomplied with. Again, water quality standards arebeing metinthis case, andthere also will beareduction inactual pollutant loadings since the new proposed permit level of4000 mg/Lwill represent areal reduction compared with the actual discharge levels of6000 mg/L. 184-&B# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 

### 10.3.2 Considerations for Other Federal Laws This section addresses several Federal laws that impact NPDES permitting. It is noteworthy that the requirements imposed under several ofthese statutes (e.g., the NHPA, ESA, FWCA, and NEPA, discussed below), only apply to Federal or federally supported actions (e.g., EPA issuance of permits). Under these particular statutes, purely State actions are not regulated. However, many States may have enacted State legislation that is modeled on Federal law and, therefore, itis prudent to review State law inthese areas prior to preparing a NPDES permit. 

### National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1992 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) establishes Federal programs to preserve the historical and cultural foundations ofthe nation. Regulations under Section 106 ofthis Act require any Federal agency, inconsultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to take into account the effect of proposed Federal or Federally assisted undertakings on architectural, archeological, historic, or cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. This has been interpreted (see EPA Memorandum dated March 15, 1994, from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator to Carol Browner, Administrator, entitled “EPA Policy Decision of a Strategy For, and Interim Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments”) to mean that consultations must be made for direct EPA actions and for individual State actions that EPA funds under its programs. However, for State actions not directly funded by EPA under EPA-authorized programs, consultation would occur on avoluntary basis.
To date, guidance for the permit writer inconsidering the NHPA requirements is not available. In general, the permit writer must ensure that the proposed discharge to be authorized under the NPDES permit will not have an adverse effect on a site listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The permit writer may want to require that the permittee show that sufficient research has been conducted to identify whether a site on the Register is located within the area. Sufficient research should include review ofthe National Register and information gathering from local governments, Indian tribes, public and private organizations, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (36 CFR Part 880). An evaluation of potential effects should be documented. Written documentation ofthe evaluation should be
&EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 185

### Chapter 10 VarIaneestoPermit Requirements and 

### OtherRegutatoty Consickratlons submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office and included inthe permit file and fact sheet. 

### Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973 The goal ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 isto provide protection and support inthe conservation and recovery ofthreatened and endangered species and the ecosystem on which they depend. Section 7 ofthe ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed or candidate species or result inthe destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Since the issuance of NPDES permits by EPA isa Federal action, consideration of a permitted discharge and its effect on any threatened and/or endangered species isappropriate. Section 9 ofthe ESA prohibits the “taking” ofany listed endangered and/or threatened species.
The ESA regulations require that consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as appropriate, occur when the Federal activity isone which may effect an endangered and/or threatened species or habitat. Effect isdefined as both detrimental and beneficial. Consultations may be either informal or formal. An informal consultation determines ifan action is, or is not, likely to adversely effect the species. A formal consultation is required ifthe findings show that there isa likelihood for adverse impacts and evaluates ifthe proposed action is likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofthe species. Itis EPA’s responsibility to ensure that consultation occurs, however, a non-Federal representative may be designated for the informal consultation (i.e., the permittee).
To date, EPA has not yet entered into a national agreement with NMFS or FWS on the scope of consultation requirements for NPDES permits. Until then, EPA permit writers should review the ESA consultation regulations (50 CFR 5402) and coordinate with the Region’s ESA coordinator (ifsuch a position has been established in a particular Region) and the FWS/NMFS office(s) located nearest the site. In evaluating the effects of a discharge upon endangered orthreatened species, the study should identify the listed and candidate species and their habitats which occur inthe area of the discharge. This information can be obtained from discussions with local FWS/ NMFS biologists. The proposed permit limits can then be compared to any existing

186-iiER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Variancesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 toxicological data and/or impacts data available for the species. Cumulative, combined, and independent effects should be evaluated. Additional species-specific information can be obtained through discussions with the local wildlife and aquatic biologists who are experts on a particular species (e.g., EPA, FWYNMFS, State Conservation, universities).
Itis EPA’s position that permits issued under State law are not subject to ESA consultation because they are.not Federal Actions. However, State NPDES Programs should have some process in place to consider potential effects on endangered and threatened species and their habitat ifthey are known to occur inthe area ofthe discharge to ensure those discharges do not result intakes of listed species. Biological Evaluations (informal) or Biological Assessments (formal) should be submitted to the FWS/NMFS for review and approval. This documentation and any decisions from the FWS/NMFS would become part ofthe permit documentation. 

### Wild and Scenic Rivers Act The 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protected selected rivers from construction of dams and excessive commercial development. Itdeclared that ‘the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate section ofthe rivers ofthe United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or section thereof intheir free-flowing condition” [Section (l)(b)]. The Act defines three classes of protected river (wild river; scenic river; recreational river) and spells out in considerable detail the management restrictions to be established for these rivers. A corridor of land on each side of a protected river is also protected. The corridor isto average no more than 320 acres per linear mile of river through the protected stretch. The rights of landowners within this corridor are maintained, subject to restrictions on the type of development allowed. Rivers are “studied” and may be protected for up to three years during the study period during which a river has the status of a protected river.

Ml34 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 187

### Chapter 10 VarIaneestoPermit Requirements and 

### Other

### RequlatotyConsickratlons 

### Coastal Zone Management Act The 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and amendments require and encourage the coastal states ofthe United States to adopt and enforce land-use plans for the lands and water adjacent to their coasts. “Coastal states,” according to the Act, include those adjacent to the Atlantic, Pacific or Arctic oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, or one or more ofthe Great Lakes. These States are required to adopt coastal management plans which designate boundaries, identify areas of particular concern, and establish an inventory of permitted uses and an enforcement mechanism. Beach access, emergency planning and erosion control also must be addressed inthe plans. EPA and other Federal agencies must coordinate their activities on coastal lands with State CZMA plans. 

### Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1934 requires mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat due to the construction of Federal water resources projects. It requires designers of Federal dams, reservoirs, and irrigation works to include the costs and benefits to fish and wildlife when determining the benefit/cost ratio of a project. It requires EPA and other Federal agencies to consult with State and Federal wildlife and fisheries agencies in order to minimize the impacts ofthe activity on fish and wildlife. The Act specifically calls for ongoing studies by the United States Department ofthe Interior on the effects ofwaterborne sewage and industrial wastes on fish and wildlife. 

### National Environmental Policy Act The 1967 National Environmental Policy Act established a Federal framework for policy decisions regarding Federal actions that will have a significant effect on the environment. “Federal” actions generally include projects undertaken by the Federal government, as well as non-Federal actions eligible for Federal assistance and nonFederal actions that require Federal permits or approvals. Thus, NEPA requirements apply to NPDES permits issued by EPA to new sources in non-delegated States. The Act’s most important provision isSection 102(2)(c), requiring Federal agencies such as EPA to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on all “proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality ofthe
188 -8EiY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Varlanoesto Permit Requirements and

OtherRegulatory Considerations Chapter 10 human environment.” The definition ofwhat constitutes such actions is an ongoing discussion. The Act establishes aframework for cooperation between the United States government at all levels, and other countries on environmental matters. Italso established the Council on Environmental Quality.

&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 189

# Chapter 11

Administrative Process

Previous discussions inthis manual focused on the process of developing NPDES permit conditions and effluent limits. This chapter describes the administrative process that is associated with the issuance of a NPDES permit. 

### Exhibit 11-1 provides aflow diagram ofthe NPDES permit administrative process. In general, the administrative process includes:

• Documenting all permit decisions • Coordinating EPA and State review ofthe draft permit • Providing public notice, conducting hearings (ifappropriate), and responding to comments • Defending the permit and modifying it(ifnecessary) after issuance.
Note that Exhibit 11-1 provides the general framework for both EPA and State NPDES permit administration. State requirements need not be identical to Federal regulatory requirements, provided they are as stringent. Therefore, some delegated States may have slightly different processes for developing and issuing NPDES permits. In addition, the evidentiary hearing and appeal process presented depicts EPA procedure. State procedures for NPDES permit hearings and appeals may vary according to State law.

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 191Chapter 11 Administrative Process
EXHIBIT 11-1 NPDES Permitting Administrative Process

192 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It



## 11.1 Documentation For Development ofthe Draft Permit When the permit is issued, the fact sheet and supporting documentation (administrative record) are the primary support for defending the permit in administrative appeals and evidentiary hearings. The process of documenting the permit requires the permit writer to be organized and logical throughout the permit development process. Some ofthe content ofthe fact sheet and administrative record is directed by Federal and State regulation and the rest isdictated by good project management. Permit writers should recognize the importance of:

. Ensuring development of athorough permit in a logical fashion

. Meeting legal requirements for preparation of an administrative record, fact sheet, and statement of basis

. Helping to substantiate permit decisions and provide a sound basis in case challenges are made to the derivation of permit terms, conditions, and limitations

. Establishing a permanent record ofthe basis ofthe permit for use infuture permit actions.
The following sections describe the requirements pertaining to the development of permit documentation, particularly the administrative record and the fact sheet. 

### 11.1.1 Administrative Record The administrative record isthe foundation for issuing permits. IfEPA isthe issuer, the contents ofthe administrative record are prescribed by regulation (see 40 CFR ss124.9 and 124.18). All supporting materials must be made available to the public, whether a State, Territory, Tribe or EPA issues the permit. The importance of maintaining the permit records ina neat, orderly, complete, and retrievable form cannot be over emphasized. The record allows personnel from the permitting agency to reconstruct the justification for a given permit. Italso must be made available to the public at any time and may be examined during the public comment period and any subsequent public hearing.
The administrative record for a draft permit consists, at a minimum, of certain specific documents as shown in Exhibit 1l-2. Materials that are readily available in the permit issuing office or published material that isgenerally available, does not
0Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 193

### Chapter It Administrative Process 

## EXHIBIT 11-2 Elements ofthe Draft NPDES Permit Administrative Record

l Application andsupporting data

l Draft permit

. Statement of basisorfact sheet

l All items cited inthestatement of basisorfact sheet,including calculations usedto derive the permit limits

l All other items inthesupporting file

l For new sources, anyenvironmental assessment,thedraft/final environmental impact statement (EIS), or other suchbackground information, suchasaFindings of No Significant Impact (only applies if EPA issuesthepermit).

need to be physically included with the record as long as itisspecifically referred to in the fact sheet or statement of basis. IfEPA issues new source draft permits, the administrative record should include any EIS or environmental assessment performed in accordance with 40 CFR $122.29(c).
The administrative record should include all meeting reports and correspondence with the applicant and correspondence with other regulatory agency personnel. In addition, trip reports and telephone memos should be included inthe record. All correspondence, notes, and calculations should indicate the date and the name ofthe writer, as well as all other persons involved. Since correspondence is subject to public scrutiny, references or comments that do not serve an objective purpose should be avoided. Finally, presentation of calculations and documentation of decisions should be organized insuch away that they can be reconstructed and the logic supporting the calculation or decisions can easily be found. The administrative record for the final permit consists ofthe items in Exhibit 11-3. 

### 11.1.2 Fact Sheetsand Statements of Basis Afact sheet isa document that briefly sets forth the principle facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit. When the permit is inthe draft stage, the fact sheet and supporting documentation serve to explain to the permittee and the general public the rationale and assumptions used inderiving the limits.
194-8El% NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It 

## EXHIBIT 11-3 Elements oftheAdministrative Records for aFinal Permit

l All elements for thedraft permit administrative record (seeExhibit 1l-2)

l All comments received during thecomment period

l The tapeortranscript of any public hearing

l Any materials submitted atahearing

l Responses tocomments

l For NPDES new source permits, thedraft orfinal EIS

l The final permit.

The NPDES regulations set forth in40 CFR $124.8(a) require that every EPA and State-issued permit must be accompanied by afact sheet ifthe permit:

. Involves a major facility or activity

. Incorporates avariance or requires an explanation under 40 CFR 5124.56(b) (toxic pollutants, internal waste stream, and indicator pollutants and for privately owned waste treatment facilities)

. Isa NPDES general permit

l Is subject to widespread public interest (see 40 CFR 5124.8)

. Is a Class 1sludge management facility

. Includes asewage sludge land application plan.
EPA permit writers are required to prepare astatement of basis for all permits that do not merit the detail of afact sheet. Such statements briefly describe the derivation ofthe effluent limits and the reasons for special conditions (see 40 CFR 5124.7). However, a prudent permit writer will develop afact sheet for any permit that required complex calculations or special conditions. This will be particularly true for permit conditions based on BPJ.
With awell-documented rationale for all decisions, much ofthe work in reissuing a permit inthe future will be done. This will avoid any conjecture and guessing concerning the development of any conditions that are being carried forward from the expired permit to the next permit. This isalso true ifa modification is initiated during the life ofthe permit. A permit rationale can be as short as two to three pages for a relatively simple permit or as long as 20 to 100 pages for an
8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 195

### Chapter It Administrative Process

extremely complicated permit (e.g., several discharge points, many BPJ determinations). The required contents ofafact sheet, as specified in40 CFR ss124.8 and 124.56, include the items listed in Exhibit 11-4. 

## EXHIBIT 11-4 Required ContentsofaFactSheet

l A brief description of thetype offacility or activity that isbeing regulated by the NPDES permit

l The type andquantity of pollutants discharged

l A brief summary of thebasisfor thedraft permit conditions, including references tothe applicable statutory or regulatory provisions

l Name andtelephone number of person tocontact for additional information

l Provisions satisfying the requirements of40CFR 9124.56:

- Explanation of derivation of effluent limitations

- Explanation of anyconditions applicable totoxic, internal waste streams,or indicator pollutants

- A sketch or detailed description ofthe location of thedischarge

- For EPA issued permits, the requirements of any Statecertification

l For every permit tobeissuedto atreatment works owned by aperson other than aState or municipality, anexplanation ofthedecision to regulate theusersunder aseparate permit

l For every permit that includes asewagesludge land application plan, abrief description of how eachof the required elements ofthe land application plan areaddressed inthe permit

l If applicable, reasonswhy any requestedvariances do not appearjustified

l A description of theprocedures for reaching afinal decision onthedraft permit, including:

- The datesof thepublic comment period andtheaddress

- Procedures for requesting ahearing

- Other procedures for public participation.
A detailed discussion ofthe development of permit limits for each pollutant should be included inthe fact sheet. For some permits, aconsiderable amount of time isspent within the permitting agency debating a permit issue that then becomes an assumption upon which the permit conditions are based. Documenting the

196 -88R9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It

decision process may prevent a repeat ofthe debate in5years when the permit is up for reissuance. For each pollutant the following information isnecessary:

l Calculations and assumptions

- Production

- Flow

. Type of limitations (i.e., effluent guideline-, water quality-, or BPJ-based)

. Whether the effluent guidelines used were BPT, BCT, or BAT

. The water quality standards or criteria used

. Whether any pollutants were indicators for other pollutants

l Citations to appropriate wasteload allocation studies, guidance documents, other references. Often, it isas important to keep a record of items that were not included inthe draft permit, such as the following:

. Why was BPJ or effluent guidelines used instead ofwater quality-based limitations (i.e., were the limitations checked to see that water quality considerations did not govern the setting of permit limits)?

. Why was biomonitoring not included?

. Why were pollutants that were reported as present inthe permit application not specifically limited inthe permit?

. Why is a previously limited pollutant no longer limited inthe draft permit? Finally, the fact sheet should address the logistics ofthe permit issuance process including the comment period begin and end dates, procedures for requesting a hearing, and the public involvement inthe final decision. 

## 11.2 Items toAddress Prior to Issuance of aFinal Permit This section describes the public participation activities that must be conducted inthe permit issuance process. These include providing public notices, collecting and responding to public comments, and holding public hearings as necessary.

8Ef# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 197

### Chapter It Administrative Process



### 11.2.1 

### Public Notice The public notice isthe vehicle for informing all interested parties and members ofthe general public ofthe contents of adraft NPDES permit or of other significant actions with respect to a NPDES permit or permit application. The basic intent ofthis requirement isto ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to comment on significant actions ofthe permitting agency with respect to a permit application or a permit. The exact scope, required contents, and methods for effecting public notices may be found in40 CFR $124.10.
The NPDES permit-related actions that must receive public notice are shown in Exhibit 11-5. 

## EXHIBIT 1l-5

ActionsThat Must ReceivePublic Notice 

# Il Tentative denial of anNPDES permit application (not necessarily applicable to State programs)

l Preparation of adraft NPDES permit, including aproposal toterminate aper

l Scheduling of apublic hearing

l Granting of anevidentiary appealof anEPA-issued permit under 40 CFR 91

l Formal appeal of permit

l New Source Determinations (EPA only) mit
24.74

The permit writer should be primarily concerned with the first three items in Exhibit 11-5. Itis important to note that no public notice is required when a request for a permit modification, revocation, reissuance, ortermination is denied.
Public notice ofthe various NPDES-related activities is provided by the following methods:

0 For major permits, publication of a notice indaily or weekly newspaper within the area affected by the facility or activity. Inaddition, for general permits issued by EPA, publication inthe Federal Register is required. 

# 1

196-8EfM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It

-

.

.

.

. . Direct mailing to various interested parties. This mailing list should include

the following:

- The applicant

- Any interested parties on the mailing list

- Any other agency that is required to issue a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Underground Injection Control, Corps of Engineers, or PSD permit for the same facility

- All appropriate government authorities (e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Services, National Marine Fisheries Service, neighboring States)

- Users identified inthe permit application of a POTW.
A public notice must contain the information shown in Exhibit 11-6.



## EXHIBIT 11-6 ContentsofthePublic Notice Name andaddressof theoffice processing thepermit action Name andaddressof thepermittee or applicant and, if different, ofthefacility regulated by the permit A brief description of thebusiness conducted atthefacility Name, address,andtelephone number of acontact from whom interested persons can obtain additional information A brief description ofthecomment procedures required For EPA-issued permits, thelocation andavailability of theadministrative record Any additional information considered necessary.
Public notice ofthe preparation ofthe draft permit (including a notice of intent to deny a permit application) must allow at least 30 days for public comment. The draft permit is usually submitted for public notice after ithas undergone internal review by the regulatory agency that is issuing the permit. State/Tribal issued permits will typically undergo public notice after EPA has reviewed and commented on the draft permit. Inthe special case ofthose EPA-issued permits that require an environmental impact statement (EIS), public notice is not given until after adraft EIS is issued. 

## 11.2.2 PublicComments Public notice of adraft permit elicits comments from concerned individuals or agencies. Frequently, such comments are simply requests for additional information. However, some comments are of a substantive nature and suggest modifications to 8ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual - 199

### Chapter It Administrative Process

the draft permit or indicate that the draft permit is inappropriate for various reasons, In such cases, those parties providing comments must submit all reasonable arguments and factual material in support oftheir positions. Ifthe approach istechnically correct and clearly stated inthe fact sheet, itwill be difficult for commenters to find fault with the permit. Commenters may always suggest alternatives, however. In addition, an interested party may also request a public hearing.
To the extent possible, itisdesirable to respond to all public comments as quickly as possible. Insome cases itmay be possible to diffuse a potentially controversial situation by providing further explanation of permit terms and conditions. Itis also good public practice to inform parties who provide public comments that their comments have been received and are being considered.
The permitting agency isobliged to respond to all significant comments (in accordance with 40 CFR 5124.17) atthe time afinal permit decision is reached (in the case of EPA-issued permits) or atthe same time afinal permit isactually issued (in the case of State-issued permits). The response should incorporate the following elements:

l Changes in any ofthe provisions ofthe draft permit and the reasons for the changes

. Description and response to all significant comments on the draft permit raised during the public comment period or during any hearing.
Inthe event that any information submitted during the public comment period raises substantial new questions about the draft permit, one ofthe following actions may occur:

. A new draft permit with revised fact sheet or statement of basis is prepared.

l Afinal permit with necessary changes explained is issued.

l The comment period is reopened but is limited only to new findings.
Ifany ofthese actions are taken, a new public notice, as described earlier, must be given.

200 -8EfR NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It



## 11.2.3 PublicHearing A public hearing may be requested inwriting by any interested party. The request should state the nature ofthe issues proposed to be raised during the hearing. However, a request for a hearing does not automatically necessitate that a hearing be held. A public hearing should be held when there isa significant amount of interest expressed during the 30-day public comment period or when itis necessary to clarify the issues involved inthe permit decision. Thus, the decision ofwhether or not to hold a public hearing is actually a judgment call. Such decisions are usually made by someone other than the permit writer. However, the permit writer will be responsible for ensuring that all ofthe factual information in support ofthe draft permit iswell documented.
Public notice of a public hearing must be given at least 30 days prior to the public meeting (public notice ofthe hearing may be given atthe same time as public notice ofthe draft permit and the two notices may be combined). Scheduling a hearing automatically extends the comment period until at least the close ofthe hearing [40 CFR §124.12(c)].
The public notice ofthe hearing should contain the following information:

. Brief description ofthe nature and purpose ofthe hearing, including the applicable rules and procedures

. Reference to the dates of any other public notices relating to the permit

. Date, time, and place ofthe hearing.
A presiding officer is responsible for the hearing’s scheduling and orderly conduct. Anyone may submit written or oral comments concerning the draft permit at the hearing. The presiding officer should set reasonable time limits for oral statements. The public comment period may be extended by so stating during the hearing. Itshould be noted that atranscript or recording ofthe hearing must be available to interested persons.

88p# NPDES Permit Writers’ 

### Manual-201

### Chapter It Administrative Process



### 11.2.4 

### State/Tribal Roles in Reviewing Draft Permit State/Tribal issued draft permits must be submitted to EPA for review ifthey relate to:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Discharges into the territorial seas Discharges that may affect waters of a State other than the one in which the discharge originates General permits Discharges from a POTW with a daily average discharge exceeding 1 million gallons per day Discharges of uncontaminated cooling water with a daily average discharge exceeding 500 million gallons per day Discharges from any major discharger or from any NPDES primary industrial category Discharges offrom other sources with a daily average discharge exceeding 500,000 gallons per day (however, EPA may waive review for non-process wastewater), and Class Isludge management facilities.
Permits issued by EPA require State/Tribal review and certification under Section 401 ofthe CWA. Such certification ensures that the permit will comply with applicable Federal CWA standards as well as with State or Tribal water quality standards. This State/Tribal certification also ensures that State and Tribal initiatives or policies are addressed in EPA-issued NPDES permits, and functions to promote consistency between State- and EPA-issued permits.
Under CWA Section 401(a)(l), EPA may not issue a permit until acertification is granted or waived. If EPA ispreparing the draft permit, State certification is usually accomplished by allowing States to review and certify the application prior to draft permit preparation. Regulations in40 CFR $124.53 [State Certification] and 9124.54 [Special provisions for State certification and concurrence on applications for section CWA 301(h) variances] describe procedures a permit writer should follow to obtain State or Tribal certification. Under 40 CFR 5124.53, when a draft permit is prepared by EPA, but State certification has not yet been granted, EPA must send the State a copy ofthe draft permit along with a notice requesting State certification. Ifthe State does not respond within 60 days, the State isdeemed to have waived its right to

202 -8B# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It

certify. Ifthe State chooses to certify the draft permit, the State may only require changes to the draft permit to incorporate more stringent State laws. Ifthe State requires such changes, the State must send EPA a letter justifying the changes and citing State regulations that support the changes. When a permit applicant requests a CWA Section 301(h) variance, the State certification process isvery similar to the process just described for permit applications and draft permits (refer to Section 40 CFR $124.54). 

### 11.2.5 Schedule for Final Permit Issuance The final permit may be issued after the close ofthe public notice period and after State/Tribal certification has been received (for permits issued by EPA). The public notice period includes:

. A 30-day period that gives notice of intent to issue or deny the permit

. A 30-day period advertising a public hearing (ifapplicable)

l Any extensions or reopening ofthe comment period.
Final EPA permit decisions are effective immediately upon issuance unless comments request changes inthe draft permit, inwhich case the effective date ofthe permit is30 days after issuance (or a later date ifspecified inthe permit). As discussed earlier, any comments that are received must be answered atthe time of final permit issuance (inthe case of NPDES States orTribes) or after afinal decision is reached (in the case of EPA). 

## 11.3 Administrative Actions After Final Permit Issuance Once the final permit has been issued, the issuing authority should integrate the permit limitations and any special conditions into the NPDES tracking system (i.e., the permit compliance system (PCS)). This will ensure that the facility’s performance will be tracked and the permitting agency will be alerted tothe need for corrective action inthe event ofviolations of permit limitations, terms, or conditions.
After final permit issuance, interested parties have other opportunities to change the permit thorough permit appeals, major/minor permit modifications, permit termination or permit transfer. These administrative procedures are described below.

8EfY4NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -203

### Chapter It Administrative Process



### 11.3.1 

### Permit Appeals Inthe process of developing adraft permit and during the public notice period, the permit writer should carefully consider the legitimate concerns ofthe permittee as well as the concerns of any third party who may have an interest inthe permit terms and conditions. However, there will inevitably be situations inwhich a permit is issued in spite ofthe objections ofthe permittee or athird party. In such instances, the permittee or an interested party may choose to legally contest or appeal the NPDES permit.
Various mechanisms are available to resolve legal challenges to NPDES permits. Inthe case of EPA-issued permits, the administrative procedure involved is called an evidentiary hearing. Many NPDES States and Tribes have similar administrative procedures designed to resolve challenges to the conditions of a permit. These procedures involve hearings presided over by an administrative law judge. For the sake of convenience, these hearings will hereafter be referred to as evidentiary hearings. They will naturally be known by different names in different State orTribe jurisdictions. However, permit writers will, from time-to-time, be involved in permit appeals and will need to address the types of issues discussed below.
Aside from preparation ofthe administrative record and notices, the permit writer may not be concerned with procedural matters relating to evidentiary hearings. All requests for evidentiary hearings are coordinated through the office ofthe EPA Regional Counsel or the appropriate State legal personnel. The permit writer’s first involvement with the hearing process will come as a result of designation ofthe trial staff and his/her role will be limited to that of awitness and technical advisor to legal counsel.
A permit writer may be required to give adeposition during which the appellant attorney conducts the questioning that would otherwise occur inthe hearing. The deposition istranscribed and presented as evidence. The appellant attorney may ask some ofthe same questions atthe hearing.
To prepare for a deposition and testimony, the permit writer should be familiar with those laws, regulations, and policies that may affect the permit. The permit writer should be thoroughly familiar with the technical basis for the permit conditions. For
204 -8ERA NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It

example, ifthe effluent limits are based on water quality requirements, the permit writer should thoroughly study any applicable basin plan or water quality simulation used to develop the effluent limits and be prepared to defend any assumptions inherent inthe plan or simulation. IfBPJ limits are based on proposed effluent guidelines, itwill be necessary to carefully review not only the guidelines themselves but ail applicable data, including the development document for the specific guidelines. The technical defense of other BPJ requirements is much more difficult. The permit writer should be sure that (1) the information on which BPJ limits are based are unimpeachable, (2) the limits were derived from the data in a logical manner, in accordance with established procedures, and (3) the BPJ limits so derived are technically sound and meet BCT or BAT standards for economic reasonableness.
As technical advisor to legal counsel, the permit writers most important function isto develop direct testimony insupport of contested permit conditions. No attempt should be made to support technically indefensible conditions. Contested permit conditions that are not technically defensible and are not based on any legal requirement should be brought to counsel’s attention, with advice that EPA or the State agency withdraw those conditions.
The second most important advisory function ofthe permit writer is assisting counsel inthe development of questions for cross-examination ofthe opposing witnesses. Questions should be restricted to the subject material covered by the witness’ direct testimony and should be designed to elicit an affirmative or negative response, rather than an essay-type response. Ifa question must be phrased in such away that the witness could attempt lengthy explanations, counsel should be forewarned. Finally, the permit writer should remember that in requesting an evidentiary hearing, the permittee has declared an adversary relationship with the regulatory agency, and the permit writer must therefore refrain from discussions about the case without prior consultation with legal counsel. Inthe role ofwitness and/or te ‘Inical advisor, the permit writer should:

l Cultivate credibility

. Never imply or admit weakness in his or her area of expertise
8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -205

### Chapter 11 Administrative Process

. Never attempt to testify about subjects outside his or her area of expertise

. Always maintain good communication with counsel.
Where the permitee isgranted relief atthe evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge generally will order appropriate relief. Where a request for an evidentiary hearing isdenied, the permittee may file a notice of appeal and petition for review with the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB), which may or may not grant an evidentiary hearing based on the factual and legal issues alleged. Similarly, where a permittee is denied relief at an evidentiary hearing, the permittee may appeal to the EAB to overturn the hearing decision. Finally, under certain circumstances decisions ofthe EAB against the permittee may be appealed in Federal court. 

### 11.3.2 Permit Modification, Revocation, Termination, and Transfer After the final permit is issued, the permit may still need to be modified or revoked prior to the expiration date. Modifications differ from revocations and reissuance. Ina permit modification, only the conditions subject to change are reconsidered while all other permit conditions remain in effect. Conversely, the entire permit may be reconsidered when itis revoked and reissued. A permit modification may be triggered in several ways. For example, a representative ofthe regulatory agency may conduct an inspection ofthe facility that indicated a need for the modification (i.e., the improper classification of an industry), or information submitted by the permittee may suggest the need for achange. Of course, any interested person may request that a permit modification be made.
There are two classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirement. Major modifications require public notice; minor modifications do not. Virtually all modifications that result inless stringent conditions must be treated as major modifications, with provisions for public notice and comment. Generally speaking, a permit will not need to be modified during the term ofthe permit ifthe facility can fully comply with permit conditions. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in40 CFR 5122.62 and shown in Exhibit 11-7.

206 -8EH4 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It 

## EXHIBIT 11-7 Conditions Requiring Major Modification

l Reopener-Conditions inthepermit thatrequired ittobereopenedundercertain circumstances.

. Technical Mistakes-To correcttechnical mistakesormistaken interpretations of law made indeveloping thepermit conditions.

. Failure toNotify-Upon failure ofanapprovedStatetonotify anotherStatewhosewaters maybeaffected byadischargefrom theapprovedState. 9 Alterations-When alterations orchangesinoperationsoccurthatjustify new conditions that aredifferent from theexisting permit.

l New Information-When information isreceivedthatwasnotavailable atthetimeofpermit issuance.

. New Regulations- When standardsorregulations onwhich thepermit wasbasedhavebeen changedbypromulgation ofamendedstandardsorregulations orbyjudicial decision.

l Compliance Schedulesfor Innovative orAlternative Facilities-To modify thecompliance schedulein light oftheadditional timethatmayberequired toconstruct thistypeof facility; orwhen goodcausefor modification ofacompliance scheduleexists,suchasan Act ofGod, strike, orflood.

. Pretreatment-To require thatanapprovedprogram beimplemented ortochangethe schedulefor program development.

l Failed BPJCompliance- When BPJtechnology isinstalled andproperly operatedand maintained butthepermittee isunabletomeetitslimits, thelimits maybereducedtoreflect actualremoval; but innocasemaytheybelessthantheguideline limits. If BPJoperation andmaintenancecostsaretotally disproportionate tothecostsconsidered inasubsequent guideline, thepermittee maybeallowed tobackslidetotheguideline limits.

l Non-Limited Pollutants-When thelevelofdischargeofanypollutant thatisnotlimited in thepermit exceedsthelevelthatcanbeachievedbythetechnology-based treatment requirements appropriate tothepermit.

l Variance Requests-When requestsforvariances,neteffluent limitations, pretreatment, etc., arefiled within thespecifiedtimebutnotgranteduntil afterpermit issuance.

l Adjust limits toreflect netpollutant treatment- Upon requestofapermittee who qualifies for effluent limitations onanetbasisunder40CFR @122.45(g) and(h).

l Insert CWA $307(a)toxic or40CFRPart503sludgeuse/disposalrequirements.

l Notification Levels-To establishnotification levelsfortoxic pollutants thatarenot limited inthepermit but mustbereported if concentrations inthedischargeexceedtheselevels.
Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes (e.g., typographical errors that require more stringent permit conditions). The conditions for minor modifications, described in40 CFR $122.63, are shown in 

### Exhibit 11-8.

88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -207

### Chapter 11 Administrative Process 

## EXHIBIT 11-8 Conditions Requiring Minor Modification

l Typographical errors must becorrected.

l More frequent monitoring or reporting isnecessary.

l An interim compliance date intheschedule ofcompliance needsrevision, provided the new date isnot more than 120daysafter thedatespecified inthepermit anddoesnot interfere with attainment ofthefinal compliance date requirement.

l Ownership haschanged but noother change isnecessary.

l The construction schedule for anew sourcedischarger needsrevision.

l A point source outfall that doesnot result inthedischarge of pollutants from other outfalls must bedeleted from thepermit.

l An approved local pretreatment program mustbeincorporated into thepermit.


## 11.3.3 TerminationofPermits Situations may arise during the life ofthe permit that are cause for termination (i.e., cancellation, revocation) ofthe permit. Such circumstances include the following (see 40 CFR 5122.62(b)):

. Noncompliance by the permittee with any condition ofthe permit 0 Misrepresentation or omission of relevant facts by the permittee

l A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment, either in an emergency or other situation

l Atemporary or permanent reduction or elimination of adischarge (e.g., plant closure).
Once the permit isterminated, itcan be placed into effect again only by the reissuance process, which requires a new permit application. All ofthe above situations may also be addressed through the p&nit modification process on a case-by-case determination.

208 -8Ef# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualAdministrative Process 

### Chapter It



### 11.3.4 Transfer of Permits Regulatory agencies will occasionally receive notification of a change in ownership of afacility covered by a NPDES permit. Such changes require that a permit be transferred by one oftwo provisions:

l 

### Transfer by Modification or Revocation-The transfer may be made during the process of modification, either major or minor. Itmay also be addressed by revoking and subsequently reissuing the permit. 0 

### Automatic Transfer-A permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee ifthree conditions are met:

- The current permittee notifies the Director 30 days inadvance ofthe transfer date.

- The notice includes awritten agreement between the old and new owner on the terms ofthe transfer.

- The Director ofthe regulatory agency does not indicate that the subject permit will be modified or revoked.

8EW NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -209

# Chapter 12

Permit Compliance and Enforcement
12.1 Overview Achieving and maintaining a high level of compliance with environmental laws and regulations are two ofthe most important goals of Federal and State environmental agencies. Enforcement provides a powerful incentive for NPDES permittees to comply. How an NPDES permit iswritten directly affects its enforceability. Each permit must be written clearly and without ambiguities so that compliance with the permit can be tracked effectively and the permit can be enforced inthe event that violations occur.
The permit writer may or may not become actively involved with the compliance monitoring and enforcement ofthe terms and conditions ofthe NPDES permits that he or she has written. The extent ofthe permit writer’s involvement will usually depend upon the organizational structure ofthe regulatory agency. Larger, centrally organized agencies will typically have specialized personnel responsible for enforcing the terms of NPDES permits. In other organizations, the individual who writes the permit will also be responsible for such enforcement activities as Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) tracking, facility inspections, and enforcement recommendations. Inthe event

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -211Chapter 12 Permit Compliance and Enforcement

of ajudicial enforcement action, the permit writer may be called upon to testify regarding the specific requirements of the permit or its basis. Regardless of the type of organizational structure within a regulatory agency, the permit writer should have an appreciation for the various aspects of a meaningful NPDES compliance enforcement program. The compliance monitoring reviews and inspections, and resulting data entered into the Quarterly Noncompliance Report database which provide the basis for evaluating compliance are addressed in the following section. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the enforcement actions available to facilitate permit compliance.

12.2 Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring is a generic term that includes all activities undertaken by Federal or State regulatory agencies to ascertain a permittee’s adherence to a NPDES permit. Compliance monitoring data collected as part of the NPDES Program are used in compliance evaluation and in support of enforcement. The process includes receiving data, reviewing data, entering data into the Permit Compliance System (PCS) data base, identifying violators, and determining an appropriate response.
A primary function of the compliance monitoring program is the verification of compliance with permit conditions, including effluent limitations and compliance schedules. Compliance monitoring may be described as comprising two elements:

• Compliance Review-The review of all written reports and other material relating to the status of a permittee’s compliance. • Compliance Inspections-Field-related regulatory activities, including sampling, conducted to determine compliance.

12.2.1 Compliance Review Compliance and enforcement personnel use two primary sources of information to carry out their compliance review responsibilities:

• Permit/Compliance Files-These files include compliance schedule reports, compliance inspection reports, DMRs, enforcement actions, and

212 - EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement chapter 12 any other correspondence (e.g., summaries oftelephone calls, copies of warning letters). Compliance personnel periodically review this information and use itto determine ifenforcement is necessary and what level of enforcement isappropriate.

l PCS-PCS is adata management system used to compile all relevant facts about afacility’s permit conditions, self-monitoring data, the inspections performed, and any enforcement actions taken. PCS isthe national data base for the NPDES Program. As such, PCS promotes national consistency and uniformity in permit and compliance evaluations. To accomplish this goal, all required data are entered into and maintained regularly in PCS.
NPDES permits must be written so that compliance data are capable of being tracked by PCS. There may be situations where permit limits and monitoring conditions are not initially compatible with PCS entry and tracking. Inthese cases, States should ensure that appropriate steps are taken by the permit writer to identify difficult permits to the person responsible for entering PCS codes (either inthe State or the Region) and to mutually resolve any coding issues. To assist PCS coders in accurately interpreting and coding the permit into PCS and to assist enforcement personnel in reviewing permittee self-monitoring data and reports in atimely manner, permit writers should apply the compliance inspection procedures discussed inthe next section (Section 12.2.2). 

### 12.2.2 Compliance Inspections Compliance inspections refer to all field-related regulatory activities conducted to determine permit compliance. Such field activities may include evaluation inspections (nonsampling), sampling inspections, other specialized inspections, and remote sensing. Certain inspections, such as-diagnostic inspections and performance audit inspections, aid the regulatory agency in evaluating the facility’s problems in addition to providing information to support enforcement action. Biomonitoring inspections are specifically targeted atfacilities with effluent suspected or identified as causing toxicity problems that threaten the ecological balance ofthe receiving waters.

aBY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -213

### chapter 12 Permit Compliance andEnforcement

Compliance inspections are undertaken for one or more ofthe following purposes:
To establish a regulatory presence to defer violations

To ensure that permit requirements are being met or to determine ifpermit conditions are adequate To check the completeness and accuracy of a permittee’s performance and compliance records To assess the adequacy ofthe permittee’s self-monitoring and reporting program To determine the progress or completion ofcorrective action To obtain independent compliance data on afacility’s discharge To evaluate the permittee’s operation and maintenance activities To observe the status ofconstruction required by the permit, 

## 12.3 Quarterly Noncompliance Reports EPA Regional Offices and States that have been approved to administer the NPDES Program are required by regulation to report quarterly on major facilities that are not in compliance with the terms and conditions oftheir permit (i.e., effluent limitations meet the criteria for reportable noncompliance [RNC], schedules, and reporting requirements).
The regulations in40 CFR 123.45 established requirements for listing facility violations and resulting regulatory enforcement action or quarterly noncompliance reports (QNCRs). This regulation established reporting requirements for violations that meet specific, quantifiable reporting criteria, as well as for violations that are more difficult to quantify but are of sufficient concern to be considered reportable. The regulation also specifies the format that the reports must follow and the schedule for their submission. Only major facilities that meet RNC criteria must be reported on the QNCR. RNC consists offive general types ofviolations:

l 

### Violation of Monthly Average Effluent Limits-Data that exceeds or equals the limit times the Technical Review Criteria (TRC) for 2 months during a 6-month period, where the TRC is 1.4 for Group Ipollutants and

214 -08# NPDES Permit Writers’ 

### Manual

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement chapter 12 1.2 for Group IIpollutants (Appendix Ato 40 CFR Part 123 contains a list of Group Iand IIpollutants); and data that exceeds the limit for 4 months during a6-month period.

l 

### Interim Effluent Limits Set Forth inaFormal Enforcement Action-Any violation of any magnitude.

l 

### Schedule-Missing acompliance schedule milestone date by 90 days.

l Reporting-Missing a report due date by 30 days.

l 

### Single Event-A violation of any magnitude considered to have an adverse effect on water quality or public health (e.g., unauthorized bypass, unpermitted discharge, frequent discharges of avariety of pollutants).
A subset of instances of RNC that appear on the QNCR may be noted as significant noncompliance (SNC). This distinction is used solely for management accountability purposes as a means oftracking trends incompliance and evaluating relative timeliness of appropriate enforcement response toward priority violations. The definition of SNC is not regulatory and may change as the NPDES Program changes to encompass new initiatives. Generally, the designation of SNC indicates aviolation isof sufficient magnitude and/or duration to be considered among the Agency’s priorities for regulatory review and/or response. The categories of SNC are:

. Violation of enforcement action requirements (i.e., administrative effluent limits, key compliance schedule milestones, and key reports)

. Violation of permit effluent limits

. Violation of key compliance schedule milestones contained in a permit

. Violation of key reporting requirements in a permit

. Any unauthorized discharge or bypass considered significant by the NPDES Program director

. Violations associated with water quality or health impacts.
The 

### Regions and NPDES States are expected to prioritize rapid enforcement action against all SNC violations by the time they appear on the first QNCR. Prior to a permittee appearing on the subsequent QNCR for the same instance of SNC, the permittee should either be incompliance or the administering agency should have initiated an appropriate formal enforcement action to achieve final compliance. Ifthe facility isstill considered SNC after two quarters and no formal enforcement action has been taken, the facility is placed on the Exceptions List. Although there are some legitimate justifications for facilities appearing on the Exception List, the Exceptions
8ElY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -215chapter 12 

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement

List generally indicates facilities for which the administering agency failed to handle enforcement in atimely and appropriate manner.
Regulatory Update In September 1995, EPA revised the definition ofSNC to include violations of non-monthly average permit limits by major facilities. Alarge percentage of NPDES majors are lacking the required monthly average limits intheir permit thus escaping detection asSNC and scrutiny forformal enforcement action. The new definition was effective on October 1, 1996 and is expected to result inbetter targeting of limited enforcement resources toviolations posing the greatest risktothe environment and public health. 

## 12.4Enforcement Specific enforcement actions are focused on asmall subset of the total number ofviolators-violators at sites where frequent or serious violations have occurred. However, these actions have the effect offostering compliance by an entire industry of facilities across the nation. By choosing the appropriate enforcement response to violations, EPA tries to achieve several goals:

l Correction ofthe violation as soon as possible

. Deterrence offuture violations by the same permittee or other permittees

. Equal treatment ofthe regulated community through use of a uniform approach to selecting enforcement responses (i.e., similar violations are treated similarly)

. Punishment of serious violations

. Effective use of enforcement resources by achieving protection of human health and the environment with the least amount of staff time and funds.
Once afacility has been identified as having apparent permit violations, the EPA or the NPDES State or Tribal organization will review the facility’s compliance history. Such a review includes an assessment ofthe magnitude, frequency, and duration ofviolations. Significant permit violations are identified and a determination of the appropriate enforcement response is made.
Section 309 ofthe Act authorizes the Agency to bring civil or criminal action against facilities which violate their NPDES permit conditions. EPA Regions and authorized States have specific procedures for reviewing self-monitoring and inspection data and for deciding what type ofenforcement action iswarranted. EPA

216 -8Ei# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement chapter 12

recommends an escalating response to continuing noncompliance. Typical types of enforcement actions include:

Inspection debriefing, calling attention to deficiencies Telephone call Letter of violation Notice ofviolation Administrative order Administrative fine,of up to $125,000 per proceeding Civil lawsuit Criminal prosecution.
Considerations when making determinations on the level ofthe enforcement response include (1) the severity ofthe permit violation, (2) the degree of economic benefit obtained through the violation, (3) previous enforcement actions taken against the violator, and (4) the deterrent effect ofthe response on similarly situated permittees. Equally important are considerations offairness and equity, national consistency, and the integrity ofthe NPDES Program. 

## 12.5 Public Participation Citizens can participate inthe enforcement process ina number ofways. Under the Freedom of Information Act, citizens have the right to request certain facility-specific compliance information from EPA’s PCS database. Interested citizens can intervene in any Federal civil action to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement or permit conditions, and to recover civil penalties in court. Citizens also have the opportunity to review and comment on any proposed consent decree to resolve a State or’Federal civil judicial enforcement action.
Section 505 ofthe Clean Water Act allows any citizen to commence acivil judicial enforcement action on his own behalf against: (1) any person (including the United States or any government agency) who isalleged to be inviolation of an effluent standard or limitation or an enforcement order issued by EPA or a State, or (2) against EPA or the State where the regulatory authority isalleged to have failed to take appropriate action. Citizens may not commence suit if EPA or the State is
8EW NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -217chapter 12 

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement

diligently prosecuting acivil or criminal action. Citizens must also give EPA, the State, and the alleged violator sixty days’ notice ofthe alleged violation prior to commencing acitizen suit. 

## 12.6 Compliance Assistance and Voluntary Compliance Policies On June 8, 1994, EPA established a new Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), consolidating a number offunctions formerly shared among different programs at EPA. One of several new offices inOECA isthe Office of Compliance (OC). The overriding mission ofthe Office of Compliance isto improve compliance with environmental laws. To do this, OC sets national compliance assurance and enforcement priorities through strategic planning and targeting; collects and integrates compliance data; develops effective compliance monitoring programs to support inspections and self-reporting; builds the capacity for more effective compliance assistance to the regulated community; works with Regions, States, municipalities, citizens groups and industry, and supports enforcement activity. Three ofthe divisions in OC are organized by economic sector (SIC Code).
As part of President Clinton’s 1995 regulatory form initiative, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued three policies to provide incentives for voluntary compliance. The first is“Incentives for Self-Policing: Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations” (hereafter referred to as the “self-audit policy”), which was issued on December 22, 1995. This policy officers incentives inthe form of elimination of gravity-based penalties to companies that find violations through an environmental audit or efforts that reflect due diligence, and promptly disclose and correct those violations. Italso offers a75% reduction ingravity-based penalties for violations that are voluntarily discovered and disclosed even ifnot found through an audit or the exercise of due diligence. The self-audit policy contains important safeguards to protect public health such as: excluding violations which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment or have resulted in serious actual harm; retaining the right to recover any significant economic benefit gained by the violator; requiring the company to remedy any environmental harm; and, excluding repeat violations.
The second policy is EPA’s “Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses” (hereafter referred to as the “small business policy”) which became
218 -Ml% NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement chapter 12

effective on June 10, 1996. The purpose ofthis policy isto promote compliance among small businesses by providing them with special incentives to participate in compliance assistance programs orto conduct environmental audits, and then to promptly correct violations. Under the small business policy, a“small business” is a person, corporation, partnership, or other entity who employs 100 or fewer individuals across all itsfacilities and operations. EPA will eliminate the entire civil penalty ifa small business satisfies allfour ofthe following criteria: (1) the business has made a good faith effort to comply as demonstrated by either receiving on-site governmental compliance assistance or conducting avoluntary environmental audit and promptly disclosing inwriting all violations discovered as part ofthe audit; (2) in past three years, the business was not subject to an action for the current violation and inthe past five years the small business has not been subject to two or more enforcement actions for environmental violations; (3) the business corrects the violation and remedies any harm associated with the violation within six months ofdiscovery; and (4) the violation has not caused or does not pose actual serious harm and has not involved criminal conduct.
Ifthe small business meets all ofthe above criteria except that itneeds a longer corrections period or ifithas obtained asignificant economic benefit from the violations, EPA will waive up to 100% ofthe gravity component ofthe penalty but may seek the full amount of any economic benefit associated with the violations.
The third new policy isthe “Policy on Flexible State Enforcement Responses to Small Community Violations,” which was issued on November 22, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “small community policy”). The small community policy assures States that they have, within appropriate limits, the flexibility to design and use multimedia compliance assistance and compliance prioritization measures as alternatives to traditional enforcement responses when addressing asmall community’s environmental violations. Under the small community policy, State small community environmental compliance assistance programs provide (1) an adequate process to return a small community to environmental compliance; and (2) an opportunity to correct violations. States electing to provide small community environmental compliance assistance should establish and follow an adequate process for determining which communities can participate, assessing a community’s 

### good faith and environmental compliance status, determining acommunity’s administrative,
iiBp# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -219chapter 12 

### Permit Compliance andEnforcement

technical, and financial capacity to comply, weighting the comparative risks associated with competing environmental mandates, and entering into an enforceable agreement establishing a risk-prioritized schedule that requires compliance with all environmental mandates as quickly as is reasonable.
A State can waive part or all ofthe noncompliance penalty ifthe community is working diligently and ingood faith to achieve compliance. The small community policy does not apply to criminal violations. EPA also reserves the right to take immediate action where the community’s actions create an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment.

220 -88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual

# Appendix A

Index toNPDES RegulationsIndex to NPDES Regulations Appendix A
CLEAN WATER ACT 40 CFR SECTION NUMBER 301(b) 122.21(m)(1), 125 Subparts A and D 301(h) 125 Subpart G 301(i) 125 Subpart J 301(k) 125 Subpart C (Reserved) 303(c) 131 Subparts A,B,and C 304(e) 125 Subpart K 316(a) 124.66, 125 Subpart H SUBJECT A Administrative Procedures Act Permit Continuation 122.6 Administrative Record Draft Permit Final Permit 124.9 124.18 Anti-Backsliding (Reissued Permits) Application Completeness Existing Facilities State Program Time toApply Duty to Reapply 122.44(l), 122.62(a)(16) 122.21(e) 122.21(g) 124.3 122.21(c) 122.21(d) Aquaculture Aquatic Animal Production Facilities Application Definition 122.2, 125.10 122.21(h)(2) 122.24 Appendix A Average Monthly Non-POTW POTW Average Weekly Limits (POTW) 122 122.45(d)(1) 122.45(d)(2) 122.45(d)(2) SUBJECT B BAT Compliance Deadline Best Management Practices (BMP) Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) Boilerplate Permit Conditions Bypass 125.3(a)(2)(iii)(A)(v)(2) 122.44(k), 125.100-102 125.3 122.41-44 122.41(m)

EPANPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix A-1Appandlx A Index to NPDES ReguMions



### SUBJECT C Calculating NPDES Permit Conditions Case-by-Case Limitations (See BPJ also) Case-by-Case Permits (See BPJ also) Coast Guard Coastal Zone Management Comments During Public Notice Compliance Schedules Computation of Time Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Confidentiality of Information Consolidation of Permit Processing Continuation of Expiring Permits Conventional Pollutants 

### SUBJECT D Definitions and General Requirements Denial of Permit Design Flow (POTWs) Dilution Prohibition Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Discharge of a Pollutant (definition) Draft Permit Duration of Permits Duty to Comply Duty to Mitigate Duty to Provide Information Duty to Reapply 

### SUBJECT E Effective Date Endangered Species Act Environmental Impact Statement Final New Source NEPA Evidentiary Hearing Procedures Ex Parte Communication Exclusions Existing Source Definition Expiration Dates (Duration of Permits) Extension of Public Comment Period 122.45 12244(a), 125.3 124.52 122.44(p) 12249(d) 124.13 122.41 (l)(5), 122.47, 122,62(a)(13) 724.20 122.21 (h)(l), 122.23 122.21 (h)(2), 122.24 122.7 124.4 122.6 401.16

122.1 122.6(b) 122.45(b) 122.45(f)(l)(iii) 122.41 (l)(4)(i) 122.2 124.6 122.46 122.41 (a) 122.41 (d) 122.41 (h) 122.41 (b)

124.15 122.49(c) 124.61 122.29(c), 124.10(b)(l) 6 124.77-91 124.78 122.3 122.29(a)(3) 122.46, 124.2 124.12(c)

Appendix A-2 -8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualIndex to NPDES Regutations Appendix A

SUBJECT F Fact Sheets Filter Backwash Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)
SUBJECT G - H General Permits Public Notice Special Procedures SUBJECT I- L Innovative Technology (See 301(k)) Inspection and Entry Internal Waste Streams Introduction of New Pollutants - POTW Issuance and Effective Dates SUBJECT M Mass Limitation Maximum Daily Metals Minor Modifications Modifications Monitoring Recording Recordkeeping Records Reports (DMRs) Representative SUBJECT N NPDES (Definition) National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Navigation Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense Net/Gross New Discharger (Definition) New Source Application Criteria Definition 124.8, 124.56 1253(g) 122.49(e) 122.21(m)(l), 122.44(d)(8), 125.30-32

122.28 124.10(c)(2)(i) 124.58

122.41 (i) 122.45(h) 12242(b) 124.15, 124.20, 124.60 122.45(f) 12245(d)(l) 122.45(c) 122.63 122.62, 124.5 122.48 122.48(p) 122.41 (j)(2) 122.41 (l)(4) 122.41 (j)(l)

122.2 122.49(g) 122.49(b) 12244(q) 122.41 (c) 122.45(g) 122.2 122.21 (j) 122.29 122.2

8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix A-3Appmdlx A Index to NPDES Regutations

Prohibited Discharges Public Notice Non-Advisory Panel Procedures Non-Continuous Discharges Non-Compliance Anticipated Other Notification Levels SUBJECT 0 Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities On-Site Construction (New Source) Operations and Maintenance SUBJECT P-Q pH Limits with Continuous Monitoring Planned Changes Pollutant {Definition) Pollutants in Intake Water (Net/Gross) POTW (Definition) Pretreatment Primary Industry Privately Owned Treatment Works Production-Based Limits Prohibitions Proper Operation and Maintenance Property Rights Public Hearings Public Notice of Permits Contents Public Hearings SUBJECT R Reapplication Recordkeeping Reopener Clause Reopening of Public Comment Period Request for Evidentiary Hearing Response to Comments Revocation and Reissuance SUBJECT S Secondary Treatment Requirements Secondary Treatment Variance Sewage Sludge Signatory Requirements 122.4(i) 124.1O(a)(l)(vi) 124.111-128 122.45(e) 122.41 (l)(2) 122.41 (l)(7) 122.42(a), 122.44(f) 122.28(c) 122.29(c)(4) 122.41 (e)

401.17 122.41(l)(l) 122.2 122.45(g) 122.2 122.44(j), 403 122 -Appendix A 122.44(m) 122.45(b) 122.4 122.41 (e) 122.41 (g) 124.72 124.10 124.10(d), 124.57 124.10(b)(2), 124.10(d)(2)

122.21 (d) 22.21(p), 122.41(j)(2) 12244(c) 124.14 124.74 124.17 122.62, 124.5

133 (See 301(h) ofthe CWA) 122.44 (o), 503 122.22, 122.27 Appendix A-4 -88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualIndex to NPDES Resuhticms Appendix A

Small Business Exemption State Certification Statement of Basis Statutory Deadlines POTW Non-POTW Statutory Variances and Extension Stays of Contested Permit Conditions Storm Water Application Deadline Group II Dischargers Group II Dischargers SUBJECT T Technology Based Effluent Limits Ten Year Protection Period 

### for New Sources and Dischargers Termination of Permit Thermal Dischargers Toxic Pollutants Toxic Pollutants List Transfer of Permit Twenty Four Hour Reporting SUBJECT U Upset SUBJECT V Variances Non-POTWs POTWS Appeals Decisions Expedited procedures Procedures SUBJECT W,X,Y,Z Water Quality Standards Waters ofthe U.S. (Definition) 122.21 (g)(8) 124.53, 124.54, 124.55, 122.44(d)(3) 124.7 125.3(a)(l) 125.3(a)(2) 125.3(b) 124.16, 124.60 122.26 122.21(c)(l) 122.21 (f)(9) 122.21(g)(lO) 122.44(a) 122.29(d) 122.64 (See 316(a) of the CWA) 122.44(e) 401.15 122.41 (l)(3), 122.61 122.41 (l)(6), 122.44(g)

122.41 (n)

122.21 (I) 122.21(m) 124.64 124.62 122.21(n) 124.63 122.44(d) 122.2 Wetlands (See “Waters ofthe U.S.” Definition) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 122.49(a)

8EY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix A-5

# Appendix B

Effluent Guidelines and StandardsEffluent Guidelines and Standards Appendix B

Protection of Environment

40
PARTS 400 TO 424 Revised as of July 1, 1995 CONTAINING ACODIFICATION OFDOCUMENTS OFGENERAL APPLICABILITY ANDFUTURE EFFECT ASOFJULY1,1995 WithAncillaries Published by theOfficeoftheFederal Register National Archives andRecords Administration asaspecialeditionof theFederal Register

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix B-1Appendix B Effluent Guidelines and Stamkuds

Appendix B-2 -8HY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualEffluent Guidelines and Statwiads Appendix B



## CHAPTERI-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY-(Continued)

PUrt 2 402 

### 403 40s 406 407 

### 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 416 416 417 418 419 

### 420 421 422 4!B 424 SUBCHUTER N-EFFLUENT CWIDELINES AND STANDARDS

[Reserved] ~~*r$e~~visione

.................................................. e General pretreatment regulations for existing and new sources of pollution

....................................... Dairy products processing point source category

... Grain mills point source category

........................... Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing point source category

................................ Canned and preserved seafood processing point sourcecategory

.................................................... Sugar processing point source category

.................. Textile mills point source category

........................ Cement manufacturing point source category

........ Feedlots point source category

............................... EleCtroplating ROillt SOllIKe category

..................... Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers

... Inorganic chemicals manufacturing point source 

# ~ZiZZif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soap and detergent manufacturing point source category

............................................................... Fertilize~r manufacturing point source category

..... Petroleum refining point source category
.............. Iron and steel manufacturing point source catww .................................................................... Nonferrous metals manufacturing point source category

............................................................... Phosphate manufacturing point source category
... Steam electric power generating point source cat wow .................................................................... Ferroalloy manufacturing point source category

... 4 

## 4 73
88

ii 347 384 446

86Y4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix B-3Appendix B Effluent Guidelines and Stamkuds



## CHAPTERI-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY (Continued)

Part 42s 426 z 429 430 431 432 ifi

z 439 440 443

446 447 454 455 iii 469 SUBCHAPTER N-EFFLlJENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Leather tanning and finishing point source category .................................................................... Glass manufacturing point source category

........... Asbestos manufacturing point source category

...... Rubber manufacturing point source category

......... Timber prOdUCtS processing point source category Pulp, paper, and paperboard point source category The builders’ paper and board mills point source category

............................................................... Meat products point source category

...................... Metal finishing point source category

.................... Coal mining point source category BPT, BAT, BCT limitations and new source performance standards

...................................................................... 011and gasextraction point source category

......... Mineral mining and processing point source category .................................................................... Pharmaceutical manufacturing point source category .................................................................... Oremining and dressing point source category

...... Effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources and standards of performance and pretreatment standarti for new sources for the paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt) point source category

............................................................... Paint formulating point source category

................ Ink formulating point source category

................... Gum and wood chemicals manufacturing point source category

.................................................... Pesticide chemlcals

................................................. Explosives manufacturing point source category

... Carbon black manufacturing pofnt source category PhOtOgraphiC pint source Category

....................... POOC 5 :: ii 102 184 E
218
245


# E 311 312 316 iii 338

Appendix B-4 -8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualEffluent Guidelines and Statwiads Appendix B

Part z! 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 471 Hospital point source category

...............................

Battery manufacturing point source category

........ Plastics molding and forming point source category .................................................................... Metal molding and casting point source category

.. Coil coating point source category

......................... Porcelain enameling point source category

........ . .... Aluminum forming point source category

.............. Copper forming point source category

.................... Electrical and electronic components point source category

............................................................... Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders point source category

........................................... :; 426 435 444 487 509 516 SUBCHAPTER O-SEWAC+E SLUDGE State sludge management program regulations

..... 641 Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge 661

SB P [RESERVEDJ SUBCBAPTER Q-ENERGY POLICY Fuel economy ofmotor vehicles

............................. Fuel economy retrofit devices

................................

6ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix B-5

# Appendix C

List ofSIC CodesList of SIC Codes Appendix C



# EXECUTIVE

OFFICE OFTHEPRESIDENT OFFICE OFMANAGEMENT

ANDBUDGET 

# STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION MANUAL 1987

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-1Appendix C list of SIC Codes



## Part II 

# Numerical List ofShortTitles

8m NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-3Appendix C list of SIC Codes



# Numerical List of Short Titles The official SICtitles ofthe divisions and the twodigit major groups,threedigit industry groups,andfourdigit industries arethoseshown in Part I.Forvariousreasons,including presentation ofstatistical tables, it is desirable to havea standard list ofshort SICtitles sothat all agenciesmay usethe sameshort titles for the samecodesaslong asthe titles fit the spacerequirements ofthe publication.Thestandard short titles belowhavebeenlimited to36spacesforfourdigit industry codesand38spacesfortwo-digit majorgroup andthre4igit industry group cock. Whereatwodigit major group ort-t industry group contains only a single fourdigit industry, the two-digit or thre4igit titles are allowed 36rather than 38spaces.If the official SICtitle falls within the short title spacelimitation above,it isgenerally usedwithout change. It isunderhod, ofcourse,thatjust asatitle itself isnotsufficient todefinean industry, sotooashort title may not appearto represent thesamecontent asthe official title. Content canonly bedefined by referencetothe off’cial titles andde scriptions forthe relevant division, majorgroup,industry group,andindustry.

8ER9 NPDES Permlt Wrlters’ Manual -APpendlx C-5List of SIC Codes Appendix C

NUMERICAL LIST OF SHORT TITLES 

## A. AGRICUITURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING
Gnie shortTit& 01 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONCROPS 011 CashGrains 0111 Wheat 0112 Rice 0115 Corn 0116 Soybeans 0119 Cashgrains, net 013 Field Cropr, Except CashG~~IUJ 0131 Cotton 0132 Tobacco 0133 Sugarcane andsugar beets 0134 Irish potatoes 0139 Field crepe,except caehgrain& Ned 016 Vegetabler and Melon8 0161 Vegetablea and melone 017 FN~~J andTree Nuta 0171 Berry crop 0172 Grapea 0173 Tree nuta 0174 citru fruiti 0175 Deciduouetree fruita 0179 Fruita andtree nuta, net 016 Horticultural specialticr 0161 Ornamental nurwy productd 0162 Foodcropsgrown under cover 019 General Farma. primarily Crop 0191 General farms, primarily crop 02 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCX‘IONLIVESTOCK 021 Live&o&, Except Dairy and Poultry 0211 Beefcattle feedIota 0212 Beefcattle, except feedlota 0213 Hoge 0214 Sheepandgoats 0219 General livestock, net 024 Dairy Farma 0241 Dairy farma 025 Poultry and Em 0251 Broiler, fryer, and roaster chickena 0252 Chicken w 0253 Turkey andturkey egge 0254 Poultry hatcheries ’ 0259 Poultry andeggs net 027 Animal Specialtia 0211 Fur-hearing animals and rabbita 0272 Ho= andother equine 0273 Animal aquaculture 0279 Animal specialtim llw tide Shari Tit& 029 General Farme, Primarily Animal 0291 General faruq primarily animal 07 AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 071 Soil Preparation Services 0711 Soil preparation eervicea 072 Crop Service0 0721 Cmp planting and protectin 0722 Crop harve8ting 0723 Crop preparation eerviceafor market 0724 Cottonginning 074 Veterinary Servicea 0741 Veterinary serviceafor I&stock 0742 Veterinary eervicea,specialties 075 Animal Services, Except VeterinuJ 0761 Liveatock services, ext. veterinary 0752 Animal epecidty mn-icea 076 Farm Labor and Management Servicea 0761 Farm labor contractore 0762 Farm management ee.rvim 076 Landscape and Horticultural Servicer 0761 Landtxape counseling and pl& 0762 Lawn andgarden servicea 0763 Ornamental ehrub andtree eervicee 06 FORESTRY OS1 Timber Tmcta 0611 Timbertracta 063 Forest Producta 0631 Forest products 065 Forestry Servicu 0661 Forekrymticea 09 FISHING, HUNTING, AND TRAPPING 091 Commercial Flahing 0912 Fiu%ll 0913 Shellfish 0919 Ibfiadheoua marine producta 092 fib Hateheriea and Prewrvea 0921 Fish hafzheriea and premrvee 097 Hunting, Trapping, Game Propyation 0971 Hunting, trapping, game propagation

&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-7Appemdlx C List of SIC Codes

10 METALMINING 101 IrMorea 1011 Ironorell 102 tipper Oree 1021 copper ona 163 LudandZincOlw 1931 Londandrincoxw 194 Cold urd Silver Oree 1941 Goldores 1944 Silver ore0 106 FenmalIoy Oru, Except Vuwlium 1061 Ferroelloy oree,except vanadium 196 Metal Mining Servicea 1061 Metal mining mmke8 169 Mlwell8neoue Metal Oren 1094 Uranium-radium-vanadjum Oreo 1999 Metal omb net 1311 Crude petroleum and natural gae 132 Natural Gu Liqnida lS2l Natural gaeliquida 136 Oil and Cu Field &Ricu 1861 -oiJandgauweIia 1362 Oil andgaeexploration eervicae 1369 oilandgaefieldeervias,nec 14 NONMETALLIC IkmmBAu. EXCEPT

12 122 1221 1222 123 1231 124 l241 COAL MINING Bituminoue Coal and Li6nite IUinin6 Bituminous coaland lignite--w&x Bituminou coal-underground Antlunclte ?Aining Anthracitemining Co8i Mining Service9 coaiminingmrvicu 13 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION 131 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gu 141 Dimension Stone 1411 Dimension m&me 142 Cnuhed and Broken S&me 1422 Cnmhed and broken lime&one 1423 Crushed andbroken granite 1429 Cruahed andbroken stone,net 144 Sand and Gravel 1442 Coasbuction sendandgravel 1446 Induetrialrand 145 ci8y. Ceramk, & RefrBctory bIiner8le 1455 Kaolin andball clay 1459 clay and r&ted minerals, net 147 Chemical nnd Fertlllzer Mlnemir 1474 Potaeh, mxla,andborate minerala 1475 Phcsphat8 rock 1479 Chemical andfertilizer mining, net 148 Nonmetallic Miner& &r&u 1461 Nonmet&ic minerals services 149 Miecellaneoue NonmetaIllc Miner& 1499 h¶iecellaneoue nonmetallic minerals 

## C. CONSTRUCTION
cbde short

Tilk IshwtTitle
15 152 l521 GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACI’ORS Buidentlal Building Conntruction Single-family housing comtruction 1522 Residential construction, net 153 Operative Buildem 1531 Operative builders 154 Nonruhlentlal Building Construction 1541 Induetrial buildings andwarehouem 1542 Nonruidential COMtNCtiOn,net 1611 Highway andstreet comtruction 162 Heavy Construction, Except HIghray 1622 Bridge, tunnel, &elevated highway 1623 Water, ewer, andutility lima 1629 Heavy conetruction, mc 17 SPECIAL TRADE CONTBAcrOBS 171 Plumbing, Heating, AirXonditionin6 1711 Plumbing, heating, airumditioning 172 Paintiw and Paper Huyinl[ 1721 Painting andpaper hanging 173 Electrical Work 1731 ElectricaI work SI’ANDARD INDUSTBIAL CLASSIFICATION 

## B. MINING

16 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, EX. BUILDING 161 Highr~y and Street Conrtruction

Appendix C-8 -8w9 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appendix C

NUMERICAL LIST OF SHORT TITLZS cods shortTitle
174 Mamnry, Stonework, and Plsetering -1741 Masonry andother stonework 1742 Plastering, drywall, and insulation 1743 Terrazzo, tile, marble, moeaicwork 175 Carpentry and Floor Work 1751 Carpentry work 1752 Floor laying andfloor work, net 176 Roofing, Siding, and Sheet Metal Work cede ShortTitk 177 Concrete Work 1771 Concrete work 178 Water WeUDrilling 1781 Water well drilling 179 Misc. Special Trade Contractom 1791 Structural &eel erection 1793 Glaeeandglazing work 1794 Excavation work 1795 Wrecking anddemolition work 1796 InstAling building equipment, net 1761 Booting, siding, andsheet metal work 1799 Special trade contractore, net



## D. MANUF’ACTURING CGde Short Titk
20 201 2011 2013 2015 202 2021 2022 2023 2024 203 2032 2033 2034 2036 2037 2038 204 2041 2043 2044 2046 2046 2047 2048 206 2061 2052 2053 206 2061 2062 2063 2064 2066 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS Meat Products Meat packing planta Saueageaandother prepared meata Poultry slaughtering andp&g Dairy Producta Creamery butter Cheeee,natural andproceesed Dry, condensed,evaporated producta Icecream andfrozen deseerta Fluid milk Preserved Fruits and Vegetablea Canned epecialtiea Canned fruita andvegetables Dehydrated fruite, vegetablea, soup Picklea, naucea.and&ad dreaaingu Frown fruits andvegetables Frown specialties, net Grain Mill Product~~ Flour andother gmin mill producta Cereal breakfast foods RicemilIing Prepared flour mixee anddoughe Wetcorn miIling Dogandcatfood Prepared feeds,net Bakery Product0 Bread, cake,and related products Cookiesandcrackem Frozen bakery products, except bread Sugar and Confectionery Froducb Rawcanesugar Canesugar refining Beetsugar Candy &other confectionery producte ChocoIate andcocoaproducta 2067 2668 207 2074 2075 2076 2077 2079 208 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 206 2061 2092 2096 Potato chip andsimilar snacke 2097 Manufactured ice 2068 Macaroni andspaghetti 2099 Foodpreparations, net 21 TOBACCO PRODUCT!3 211 CiglUdbS 2111 cigarette8 212 C&F2121 tie213 ChewingandSmoking Tobacco 2131 Chewing andsmoking tobacco 214 Tobacco Stemming and Redrying 2141 Tobaccostemming and redryine 22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS 221 Broadwoven Fabric Mills, Cotton

Short Titk chewing gum Saltedandroaetednutaaadeeeda Fata andOile cottoIlwed oil milla soybean oil milla Vegetable oil mi&, net Animal and marine fataandoiIe Edible fateandoiIa,net Beverage Malt beverages Malt Winea, brandy, andbrandy epirite Distilled and blended liquora Bottled andcanned eoRdrinka Flavoring extracta andeyrupe, net Misc. Food and Kindred Products Canned andcured fish andeeafooda Fnxh orfrozen prepared fish Roastedcoffee

BEpA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-9Appendix C Llst of SIC coder

STANDARD INDUSI’FUAL CLASSIFICATION Short Tirk 2211 Brondwoven fabric mills, cotton 222 Broadwoven Fabric MiL, Manmade 2221 Broadwoven fabric mills, manmade 223 Btiwovcn Fabric Mlllr, Wool 2231 Sroadwoven fabric mi& wool 224 Narrow Fabric Mills 2241 Narrow fabric milla 225 Knitting Milh 2251 Women%hoeiery, except socka 2282 Hoe&y, net 2253 Knit out8rwear miun 2254 Knit undeIwear miua 2257 Weft knit fabric milIa 2258 I&x & warp knit fabric milla 2259 Knitting miua net 226 Textile FinIsNng, Except Wool 2261 l!bish& plant& cotton 2262 Fidhing planta. manmade 2266 Fihhing plants. net 227 CupetmandlGum 2273 Carpetaandnagn 228 Yarn andThread Yillr 2281 Yarnappinnine mi& 2232 Thmwingandwindingmi& 2264 Thrwdmih 229 MimU~eow Textile coodr 2296 Cited fahriu, not rubbe2296 TlNcordMdfabria 2267 Nonwovmfahriu 2268 cordqpMdtwiw 2269 Textilogoodm, nac 23 APPAREL AND OTHER TEXTILE PlZODUCl’S 231 Mcn'r ud Bon S&J and Coata 2311 Men’mandboya’m&mandcoati 232 Mca’mand Boym’Fumkahingm 2321 Men’r Andboyd mhiru 2322 MM’8&boydun&nrwr&nightrrsu 2323 bfan’r andboya’neckwear 2325 Mdr andbon tro- and lledu 2326 MM’B andboyd work cIotNng 2329 Men’randboye’cl&hing,nec 223 Women’8and Mha’ Outerweu 2331 Women’s& mimm’ blow &ahirta 2336 Women’r,junim’, & ti dreacm 2337 Women’r andmiwm’ mite andcoati 2336 WomM’r andw outerweu. net 234 Women’r and Chlldren’r Undergumentr 2341 Woman’sandchildnm’n underwuar 2342 Brae,girdlee, andallied garmenti 235 Hats, Cape,and Millinery 2353 Hats, caps,andmillinery chde Short Titk 236 2361 2366 237 2371 238 2381 2384

24 241 2411 242 2421 2426 2426 243 2431 2434 2435 2436 2436 244 2441 2448 2449 245 2451 2452 249 2491 2463 2499 26 FuRNITuREANDFlxTuRBs 261 Howhold FurNtum 2511 Woodhouaehold furniture 2512 Upholmterqi houeehold furuiture 2614 Metal houeehold furniture Girla’ and Children’s Outerwear Girb’ &chiidren’r dreww, bloom Girld andchildrem’r outernear. net Furcoodl hgoodr Mimellaneour Apparel andAccewoda Fabric drem andwork glow Robeeanddreauinggowna Waterproof outmw4ar Leather andsheeplimd clothing Apparel belta Apparel andacwworim net MISC.Fmbriated Textile Producta Curtain anddraperiem Houmw net Textile bago tl%uwMand related producte Pleating andetitching Automotive andapparel trimminga Schiffli machine embroideriem Fabricated textile producta, net LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCE3 Lonfnl hall Sawmilla and Plming MU& SnwmUIeandplaning millr, general Hardwood dime&on & flooring mills !3pecialpKlductuwmill&nec Millwo~ Plywood & Smural Meah bfihork wood Ntchen CabiJlota Hudwood veneer andplywood Softwoodvenwr and plywood Structural woodmember net WoodConNailed woodboxw andahook Woodpdetaandrkidr Woodconbinen, net WoodBuildinge and MoNk Homa Mobih homea Prefabriatedwoodbuildingm MlrccuMeoIu wood Producta wood pmmving RwoMtitutad woodproductJ Wood produ* nw

Appendix C-10 -8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appendix C

NUMERICAL LIST OF SHORT TITLSS cbdf Short Titk 2515 Mattreww and bedspringa 2517 WoodTV and radio cabineta 2519 Houeehold furniture, net 252 Office Furniture 2521 wood office furniture 2522 Oflice fimiture, except wood 253 Public Building & Related Furniture 2531 Public building & related furniture 254 Partitiona and Fixturea 2541 Wood partitione andtkturea 2542 Partitions andfixtures. except wood 259 Mlacellaneour Furniture and Flxturee 2591 Drapery hardware k blinda &ahad25% Furniture andfixturee, net 26 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 261 Pulp Mlllr 2611 PUlpUlilb 262 Paper Milla 2621 Paper miIL3 263 Paperboard MlUn 2631 Paperbaud mill&i 265 Paperboard ConWnem and Boxes 2652 Setup paperboard boxes 2653 Corrugated andsolidfiber boxes 2655 Fiber cana,druma 8 eimihr products 2656 Sanitary foodcontainem 2657 Fokling paperboard boxm 267 MISC.Converted Paper Pruductr 2671 Paper conted8 Laminated, packaging 2672 Paper coatedandlaminated, net 2673 Baga:plaetia6 Iaminated, &coatad 2674 Baga:uncontd paper & multiwall 2676 D&cut paper andbonrd 2676 Sanitary paper producta 2677 E?lVdOpW 2678 Stationery producta 2679 Convertad paper producta, net 27 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING 271 Newrpapem 2711 Ne=vwm 272 Perludl& 2721 Periodicale 273 Book8 2731 Book publiahlng 2732 Book printing 274 Mluellaneow Publthlng 2741 MiecelIaneoua publiehing 276 commerc~PrlntlIlg 2752 commercial printing* Iithoglnphic 2754 t3mtnorclal printing, gravure co& Short ZWk 2759 Commercial printing, net 276 ManlfoId Burlnew Forma 2761 Manifoid bueinea, forma 277 Greeting cuds 2771 Greeting cards ‘278 Blankbuuka and Bookbinding 2782 Blankboob and looeeleafbindern 2789 5ookblndlng and related work 279 Prlntlng Trade Servicw 2791 Typeestting 27% Platemaking oervicea
28 CHEMICALS AND ALIJRD PROD 281 Indurtrlal Inorganic Chemlaia 2812 Alkalies andchlorine 2813 Imhhial gwee 2816 Inorganic pigmentr 2819 Industrial inorganic chemicals, net 282 Pla&er Materida and Synthetica 2821 PIaatica materials and maina 2822 Synthetic rubber 2823 Cdlulaxic manmade fibera 2824 Organic fibers, noncA.luloeic 283 Drulr 2833 Medicinala andbotanicala 2834 F%anmceutical preparatione 2835 Diagno6ticaubetanceo 2836 Bioklgicai praducta WC.diagno6tic 284 Soap,Cleanem. andTollet Gaoda 2841 Soapandother detergenta 2842 PoIieheaandsanitation goods 2843 Surface active agent8 2644 Toilet preparationa 285 Fwnta and Allied Produttr 2851 Paints andallied producta 2% lndustrl~ Organic ChemiaIr 2861 Gumandwoodchemicale 2885 Cyclic crudeeand intermediatee 2869 Induetrial organic chemicaln, net 287 Agricultuml Chemicala 2873 Nitmgenoue ferfikem 2874 Phwphatic fertiIizem 2876 Fertilizem, mixing only 2879 AgricuItuml chemicab, net 289 MlmxUaneuw Chemkal Pruduct~ 2891 Adhwivw and oe&nta 2892 ExphiveN 2893 printing ink 2895 Carbon black 28% Chemical preparation net IU(

6HY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendlx C-11Llst of SIC coder

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION cob She+?Titk GTde Short Titk 29 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUClg 291 Petroleum Refining 2911 Petroleum refining 296 bphalt Paving and Roofing Materials 2951 Aephalt paving mixturea andblocb 2952 Asphalt felb andcoatinge 2% Misc. Petroleum and Coal Productr 2992 Lubricating oilsandgreases 2999 Petroleum andcoalproducts, net 30 301 3011 302 3021 306 3062 3063 306 3061 3069 368 3081 3082 3083 3084 3086 3086 3087 3083 3089 RUBBER AND MISC. PLASTICS PRODUCIg Tlru and Inner Tuber Tim andinner tubee Rubber and PIutica Footwear Rubber andplaatica footwear How 8 Belting 8 Gaaketa & Packing Rubber 6 plaatia hose8 belting Gaaketa, packing andsealing devices Fahrlcatd Ruhher Products. NEC Mechanical rubber goode Fabricated rubber products. not Mlacellaneour Plaatia Producta. NEC Unsupported plastics film 8 eheet Unsupported plastics profile &apes Laminated plnatica plate &sheet PlaetiaI pipe Plaetica bottlee Plantice foam pmducte Cwtom compound purchased reaim~ Plea&a plumbing tirturee Plestica producte, net 32 STONE. CLAY, AND GLASS PRODIJ~ 321 Flat Gla~ 3211 Fiat gb 322 Glad and Glaxeware. Preseedor Blow,, 3221 Glam containere 3229 Preaed and blown gti net 323 Producte of Purchased Glau 3231 Producta ofpurchased glam 324 Comenf HydrmuUc 3241 Cement, hydraulic 325 Stntcturd Clay Productr 3251 Brick andetructural clay tile 3253 C!emmicwall andfloor tile 3255 Chy-rim 3259 structulnl day produ* net 326 Pottery and Related Productr 3261 Vitreoue plumbing fixturw 2262 Vitreous china table 6 kitchenware 3263 Semivitreous table & kitchenware 3264 Porcelain electrical euppliw 3269 Pottery producta, net 327 Concrete, Gyprum, and Plaster Prod3271 Concrete block andbrick 3272 Concrete pro&%, net 3273 Fteady-mixed concrete 3274 Lime

31 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS 311 Leather Tanning and Finishing 3111 Leather tanning and ii&hing 313 Footwear Cut Stock 3131 Footwear cutstock 314 Footwear, Except Rubber 3142 Houseslippers 3143 Men’8footwear, excapt athletic 3144 Women’8footwear, except athletic 3149 Footwear, excapt rubber, net 315 Leather Gloveeand Mlttenn 3151 Leather glovw and mittma 316 Lwmw 3161 Luegaee 317 Handbags and Personal Leather w 3171 Women’r handhagnandpurses 3172 Personal leather gm net 319 Leather Goode,NEC 31% Leather goode.net 3276 Gypmm pruductd 328 Cut Stone and Stone Productr 3281 Cutatoneandstoneproducts 329 Misc. NonmetaUic Mineral Product 3291 Abtive productd 3292 Aabc&crproducta 3296 Minerakgroundortreakd 3296 Mineralwool 3297 Nonclay re&actoriea 3299 Nonmetallic mineral products, net 33 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES 331 Blut Furnace and Basic Steel Prod3312 Blaet fumaceu andet.& milla 3313 Electrometallurgical producta 3315 Steelwire and related producta 3316 Coldt&ehing of&eel ehapea 3317 Steel pipe andtubw 332 Iron and Steel FoundrIa 3321 Gray andductile iron foundries 3322 Malleable iron foundriee 3324 Steal inveetment foundries 3325 Steel found&q not 333 FWmuy Nonfermur Met& 3331 Primary copper 3324 Primaryahlminum

Appendix C-12 -iiEl% NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appendix C

NUMERICAL IJSF OF SHORT TTIZES cbde shortTide 3339 Primary nonfermua metale, net 334 Secondary Nonferrow Metals 3341 Secondary nonfermus metals 335 Nonferrous Rolling and Dewing 3351 Copper rolling enddrawing 3353 Aluminum eheet,plate, andfoil 3354 Aluminum extruded products 3355 Aluminum rolling anddrawing, net 3356 Nonferrou rolling anddrawing, net 3357 Nonferrous wiredmwing & indating 336 Nonferrwr Found&a (Camtingm) 3363 AluJninumdi~tingfl 3364 Nonferrous diming ext. aluminum 3365 Aluminum foundriee 3366 Copperfound&s 3369 Nonferrou found&e, net 339 Miweilaneour Primary Metal Producb 3398 Metal heat treating 3399 Primary metal producb, net 34 341 3411 3412 342 3421 3423 3425 3429 343 3431 3432 3433 344 3441 3442 3443 3444 3446 3448 3449 346 3451 3452 346 3462 3463 3465 3466 3469 347 3471 WY FABRICATED METAL PRODUCT!3 Metal Caneand Shipping Containem Metal cane Metal band, druma, and paila Cutlery, Handtoolr, and Hardware Cutlery Hand andedgetools,net Sawbladeeendbandsawe Ha&ram, net Plumbing and Hesting, Except Electric Metal wnitary ware Plumbing tlxture fittingn andtrim Heating equipment, except electric Fabricated Structural Metal Produetr Fabricated etructural metal Metal doom,wth, andtrim Fabricated plate work (boiler shops) Sheet metal work Architectumi metal work Prefabricated metal buildingn Mlwellaneoua metal work Screw Machine Produetr, Bolts, Etc. Screwmachine producta Flolta,nuts, rivets, andwaahere Metal Forginga and Stunpin Iron andsteel forginga Nonferrous forginge Automotive atampinge
- andclosuree Metal &*, net Metal Services, NEC Plating andpolu Metal coating andallied eervicm Glde shortnrlc 348 Ordnance andAcceworiea, NEC 3482 Small arma ammunition 3483 Ammunition. ext. forsmall ~ na: 3484 SIMUarmS 3489 Ordnance andacceworiw. net 349 Misc. Fabricated Metal Productr 3491 Industrial velvee 3492 Fluid power valves & hoeefittinga 3493 Steel spring& except wire 3494 Valvee and pipe fittingn, net 3495 wire springa 3496 Miec.fabricated wire producb 3497 Metal foil and leaf 3498 Fabricated pipe andfitiinga 3499 Fabricated metal products, net 35 351 3511 3519 352 3523 3524 363 3531 3532 3633 3534 3535 3636 3537 354 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3519 356 3562 3663 3564 3566 xi66 3569 356 3581 3!562 3563 INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT Rnginee andTurbinea Turbinee andturbine generator sets Jnternal combustion enginee, net Farm and Garden Machintry Farm machinery andequipment Lnwn andgarden equipment Construction and Related Machinery Construction machinery Mining machinery Oil andgaefield machinery Elevators and moving stairwayu Conveyore endconveying equipment Hoiets. cranea,end monorti Industrial trucks endtractors Metalworking Machinery Machine too4 metal cutting type0 Machine took metal forming m Industrial patterna Specialdi~too~jigs&fixtume Machine tool acceasoriw Powerdriven bandtooln Rolling mill machinery Welding apperatua Metalworking mad&my, net special Indurtry Machines Textile machinery Woodworking machinery Paper induetries machinery Printing tmdes machinery Foodproducta machinery Special industry machinery, net General Industrial Macbhmry Pumps and pumping equipment Ball and roller beaingn Air andgascomprewora

8HY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-13Appemdlx C List of SIC Codes

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION cub shortTitle 3564 Biowenr andfans 3565 Packeging machinery 3566 Speedchangers, drives, andgears 3567 Industrial fumacea andovens 3568 Power tranemieeion equipment, net 3669 General industrial machinery, net 357 Computer and Offwe Equipment 3571 Electronic computers 3572 Computer etarage devicen 3575 Computer terminals 3577 Computer peripheral equipment, net 3578 calculating andaccounting equipment 3579 Office machines, net 358 Refrigeration and Service Machinery 3581 Automatic vending machinea 3582 Commercial laundry equipment 3585 Refrigeration and heating equipment 3586 Meaeuring enddispeneing pumps 3589 Service induetry machinery, net 359 Induatriai Machinery, NEC 2592 Carburetors, pietone, rings. valves 3593 Fluid power cylinders Qactuators 3594 Fluid power pumpe and motors 3596 Scab andbalances, ext. laboratory 3599 Industrial machinery, net 36 ELJXl’RONIC & OTHER ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT 361 Electric Dirtribution Equipment 3612 Transformers, except electronic 3613 Switcbgeeu and nwitchboard apparatus 362 Electrical Indurtriai Apparatus 3621 Motors andgenerators 3624 Carbon andgraphite producta 3625 Belays end industrial controle 3629 Electrical industrial apparatus, net 363 Hourehoid Appiiancee 3631 Household cooking equipment 3632 Household refrigerators endfreezers 3633 Household laundry equipment 3634 Electric housewares andfans 3635 Houeehold vacuum cleaners 3639 Household appliances, net 364 Electric Lighting and Wiring Equipment 3641 Electric lamps 3643 Currentcarrying wiring devices 3644 Noncurrentarrying wiring devices 3645 Residential lighting futures 3646 Commercial lighting futures 3647 Vehicular lighting equipment 3648 Lighting equipment, net 365 Household Audio and Video Equipment 36Sl Household audio endvideo equipment ewe short Title 3652 Prerecorded recordsandtapes 366 cOmmunicatione Equipment 3661 Telephone andtelegraph apparatus 3663 Radio &TV communications equipment 3669 Communications equipment, net 367 Electronic Components andAccessories 3671 Electron tubee 3672 Printed circuit boarda 3674 Semiconductore and related devices 3675 Electronic capacitors 3676 Electronic resistors 3677 Electronic wile andtransformers 3678 Electronic connectam 3679 Electronic components, net 369 Mien. Electrical Equipment P Suppiiea 3691 Storage batteries 3692 Primary batteries, dry andwet 3694 Engine electrical equipment 3695 Magnetic andoptical recording medie 3699 Electrical equipment &eupplies, net 37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 371 Motor Vehicles and Equipment 3711 Motor vehicles andcar bodies 3713 Truck and busbodies 3714 Motor vehicle parts endaccessories 3715 Truck trailers 3716 Motor homes 372 Aircraft and Parts 3721 Aircraft 3724 Aircraft engines andengine parts 3728 Aircraft parta andequipment, net 373 Ship and Boat Building and Repairing 3731 Ship building and repairing 3732 Boat building and repairing 374 Railroad Equipment 3743 Railroad equipment 375 Motorcycles, Bicycles, and Parta 3751 Motorcycles, bicycles, and parta 376 Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles, Parta 3761 Guided miesiies andspacevehicles 3764 Spacepropulsion units and parts 3769 Spacevehicle equipment, net 379 Mieceiianeous Transportation Equipment 3792 Travel trailers endcampers 3795 Tanks andtank components 3799 Transportation equipment, net 38 INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 381 Search and Navigation Equipment 3812 Search and navigation equipment

Appendix C-14 -&EM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appemdlx C

NUMERICAL LIST OF SHOWT -

382 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3829 3827 3829 384 3341 3842 5843 3844 3845 385 3851 386 3861 387 3873 shodTiiL Meamuring and Controlling Devices Laboratory appnmtua andfurnitare JInvironmentrl controla FWcemcontrol inatnunenb Fhid meters aad counting devicem Imtrumenta toraeasum eiectricity AnalytiadiMtrumen~ Optical inatrumsnh and lenmm Meamuing & controlling devicea,net Medial Inatnunenta and Sapplke Surgical andmedical i&name& Surgical appliancea andapplier Dental equipment and ruppiia X-my apparahu andtuba Electromedicalequipment 0pMllahic Gooda w-cgoodr Phot@graphk EquipmentandSmppltu Photographic equipment and ruppliee watcilea, CIock#.watchccws P Parta Watch cloc4 watchcaea & puts 

## E. TRANSPORTATION
co6 SAOHTitk 40 RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION 401 Raumdm 4011 Raamad& Ulle&aul oper8tiag 4013 switching andtelrmiMl memicem 41 411 4111 4119 412 4121 413 41Sl 414 4141 4142 415 4151 417 417a LOCALANDINTERURBAN PASSENGER TRANSIT LoaIandsubarhMTraM~ Laalmd NburbantmMit -P-wm t=nwrtdolb MC Tariclrhr Inter&y and Rnrai Blu -t&a IIlWCi~&lldbUhMpOdtiM Bru Charter Service Local bu chador emvice B~-KWIi~sxcsptloal Sehooi Bw Schoolbw Bur Terminai and &mica FadMaBlmwmlidandearv&e

## AND PUBLIC UTILITIES code shm Title 42 TRUCKING AMI WAREHOUSING 421 Trucking 8 Courier Serricee, Es. Air 4212 m trucking, without storage 4213 Trucking, excapt iocai 4214 Local trucking with atom@ 4215 Courier oervicen,except byair 422 Public Wamhourlng and Storyc 4221 Farm product warehousing andtire@ 4222 Refrigemted warehousing andtimge 1226 General warehoming andetorage 4228 Special wamhouming andstorage, net U3 Trucking Termtnai F~ciIitiea 4231 Tbwking tarmid facilith 43 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 431 U.S.Poetai Service 4311 U.S.PoEtalService 44 WATER TRANSPORTATION 441 IkepSuForelgnTmm.ofFm~t 4412 Deepmaa

foreign tmna. offreight 39 391 3911 3914 3916 393 3931 394 3942 3944 3949 396 3961 3952 3953 3955 396 3201 3965 399 3991 3993 3995 3996 3999 Short Titk MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACI’URING INDUSTRIES Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Ware Jewelry, precious wtai Silverware and plated ware Jewelem’ materials %lapidary work Murical Inatrumente Mu&al instrumenta Toy and Spoting Goode Dollaandstuffed toys Game, toys,andchildren’r vehici~ Sporting andathletic gooda,net Pens,Pencii~ OffIce. 8 Art Supplke Pensand mechanical pen& Leadpencilsandartgooda Marking devicee Carbon paper and inked ribbons Cootume Jewelry and Notiona costume Meti Fastenen buttons, needlee,& ph Mhcelhneoua Mulufutluu Broomaandbrush Sigm andadvertising qcialitiea Burial caakeh Hard aurfacefloor cove- net Manufacturing induutriw, net

8EY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-15Appemdlx C List of SIC Codes

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION Cd Short Titk code Short Rtk 442 4424 443 .4432 444 4449 448 4481 4482 4489 449 4491 4492 4493 4499 DeepSeaDomestic Tmna. of Freight Deepseadomestic trans. offreight Freight Tmna onthe Great Lakes Freight trans. onthe Great Lakes Water Tmnsportation of Freight, NEC Water transportation offreight, net Water Transportation of Pmnengem Deepseapassengertrans.. ex.ferry Ferries 4741 Rental ofrailroad cara 478 Misceiisneour Tmnnportation ‘Senicea 4783 Packing andcrating 4785 Inspection &fixed facilities 4789 Transportation services, net

Water passengertransportation, net Water Tmnqxwtation Services Marine cargo handling Towing andtugboat service Marinas Water transportation services, net 45 TRANSPORTATION BY AIR 451 Alr Transportation. Seheduied 4512 Air transportation, scheduled 4513 Air courier servicea 452 Air Transportation. Nonscheduled 4522 Air transportation, nonscheduled 458 Airports. Flying Fieidr. & Servicea 4581 Airports, flying fielda,%servicea 48 COMMUNICATIONS 481 Telephone Communkations 4812 Radiotelephone communications 4813 Telephone communicationr, ext. radio 482 Telegraph & Other Communicationa 4822 Telegraph 8 other communications 483 Radio andTrievirion Broadcarting 4832 Radiobroadcasting stations 4833 Television broadcasting stations 484 Cable and Other PayTV Services 4841 Cableandother payTV services 489 Communkationr Smkor. NEC 4899 Communications services, net 49

46 PIPELINES, EXCEPT NATURAL GAS 461 Pipeiineu. Except Nstumi GM 4612 Crude petroleum pipelines 4613 Refined petroleum pipelinea 4619 Pipelinea. net 47 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 472 PanaengerTmnrportation Arrangement 4724 Travel agencies 4725 Tour operators 4729 Passengertransport arrangement. net 473 Freighl Tmneportation Arrangement 4731 Freight transportation arrangement 474 Rental of Bailroad Cam 491 4911 492 4922 4923 4924 492s 493 4931 4932 4939 494 4941 495 4952 4953 4959 496 4961 497 4971 ELECTRIC, GAS,AND SANITARY SERVICES Electric Servicea Electric services Ga Production and Distribution Natural gastransmission Gastransmission anddiatribution Natural gmdistribution Gasproduction and/or distribution Combination Utility Servicer Electric andother aerviceecombined Gasandother services combined Combination utilities, net Water Supply Water supply Sanit8ry Services Seweragesystems Refuseeystems Sanitary servicea. net Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply Steam andair-conditioning supply Irrigation Syrtenu Irrigation system8 

## F. WHOLESALE TRADE
code 50 561 Short Tit& WHOLESALE TRADE-DURABLE GOODS Motor Vehicles, Parta. and Suppiiet 5012 5013 5014 ml,r: Automobiles andother motor vehicles Mokx vehicle rrupplieaand newparts Tirea andtubea

I ““1” Motor vehicle parts. ueed

Appendix C-16 -aEM NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appendix C

NUMERICAL LIST OF SHORT TITLEE code Short Titk &le ShortTitk 502 b921 5023 503 5031 b932 5033 5039 MU 5043 5044 bo4s 6040 6047 bus Fumlture and Homefurnhhinfr lhmhlreHomeLumkr and Construction Matedah Lumber, plywood, and millwork Brick atone,6 related materiaB Roofing, siding, 6 innulation coMtruction matEriala, IILX Profeuional 8 Comnterclal Equipment Photqraphic equipment andwppliea Officeequipment Computerq peripheraln &eoftware Commercial equipmenk net Medical andhoopital equipment Ophthalmicgoode Profeeaional equipment, net Met& and Minerals, Except Petroleum Mebla m-vice centere endofRcer Coalendother minerala andoree EkCtriUlGoob Electrical apparatun andequipment Electrical appliancee, TV 6 radioa Electronic parta andequipment Hudrue, Plumbing ik Henting Equip 61 511 6111 5112 6113 512 6122 513 5131 5136 5137 5139 514 5141 6142 6148 5144 5145 6146 5147 6148 6149 615 US3 6154 6159 616 6162 5169 617 5171 6172 618 6181 5182 519 6191 519% 5193 5194 5198 6199 WHOLESALE TRADE-NONDURABLE GOODS Paper and Paper Producti Printing andwriting paper &ationery andoffice Nppk Induntrial & pexnonal service paper Da-up, Proprietaries, and Sundrier Drugs, proprietaries. andsundries Apparel, Piece Goods.and Notiona Piecegooda& notions Men’s andhoya’clothing Women%andchildren’r clothing Footwear Groceriu and Related Producta Groceriee, general line Packeged froz8n foode Dairy productr, ext. dried orcanned Poultry and poultry producta Confectionery Fiehandaeafooda Meata end meet producta Fresh fhita and vegetahlce Groceriee and related producta, net Farm-Product Raw Materiala Gram andfield heana Livestock Farm-product raw materials, net Chemkalr and Alkd Producta Plaetiw materiala 6 hneicshapee CheJmicaln8 allied producta, net Petroleum and Petroleum Producta Petroleum bulk stationa %terminala Petroleum productd, net Beer, Wine, and Dlatilled Beveragea Beerandale Wine and&tilled beverages Mbc. Nondurable coodr Farm NpphO Booka,periodicale. drnewspapers Flowem &floristr’ supplies Tobaccoandtobaccoproducta Paint& varnish-, end Npplim Nondurable m net b974 6076 607s b98 b982 5083 6084 soab b987 5088 609 5091 b992 5093 5094 5099 wnt Hardware Plumbing 6 hydronic heating supplies warm air heating k airuulditioning Refrigeration equipment andsupplies Machinery, Equipment, snd SuppUea Conetruction and mining machinery Farm andgarden machinery Industrial machinery andequipment Industrial auppliee Service eotahliahmeat equipment Tramportation equipment & ruppliMkeUaneow Durable Goada spa* b recreational gwde Toyr and ho&y 9oo& and Np&diU ScrapandwastemateriaL Jewelq 6 precio~ stonea Durable gao& aec 

## G. RETAIL TRADE
cob 52 SAwt Titlr cod SM Titk BUILDING MATEBULB 0 GARDEN 623 Paint, Glaxo,and Wallpaper Storea SUPPLIES 6231 Paint, glam, andwallpaper atoree 521 Lumber and Other Building HaterI& 6211 Lumber andother building matariah 625 HardwareStoru 6251 Hardware atorm 526 Retail Nurseriu and Garden Storw

8B94 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-17Appemdlx C List of SIC Codes

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL -CATION Shad Titk 5261 Raail numeriea md garden &ma 527 Mobile Home Dealem 5271 Mobile homedealen 53 GENERAL MEXFIANDISE STORES 531 Department Stores 5311 Department 8tmw 533 varietystoreo 5331 vtietyatma 539 MIw. GeneraI Mercbandim Storm 5399 Misc. general merchandlae rtara
54 FOOD STORES b41 Grocery Stores 5111 Grocarystora S42 Meat and Flab Mukete b421 Meat andfish marketa 543 Fruit and Vegetable Mark5431 Fruit andvqptahle marketa 54.4 Candy, Nut, and cOnfLctlonory Storea S441 caady, nuf andconfasonery otmw 545 DairyRoductastorea MS1 Dairypmductartolw 546 RetauBakertea S461 Retailh&xia 519 MisceUaneo~ Food Storea 5499 MhcelhNouafcodctome 5s AUTOMOTIVE DEALEHS & SERVICE STATIONS bbl New and UaadCar Dealera 5511 Newandumulcardsalsn bst UudcarDealem b621 uaedcardeatem 553 Auto and Home Supply Stora 5531 Auto andhome Np&dy s&rem 554 Ga~UneSewkeStatio~ bb41 GaAine eerviuetdoM ssb BoatDeaIera bSb1 Bo&dmlen 554 Rureauonal vcbick Dulen bb61 RecrWioMl-m bS7 MotorcycIeDeakm bb71 M~deaIem Sb9 Automotire Deekrm, NEC 5599 Automotive dealem ntx 56 APPAHEL AND AccEssoRY sTOHE8 Wl Men’r & Hop’ clothing Stora 6611 Men’8 & boy8’&thing mtora 562 Women’s tIMbh# storu chdi Shad litk 5621 Women’0clothing stora 663 Womtn'r Auxnary & speciauy storea 5632 Women’r accsmrJr~m~rbrc* SM Children’s and Inhata’ Wear Storm Si341 Childrw’randinfanff ueuatomm 666 Fadly ClothIngStoru 6661 Familyclothingetoree 566 shoestoru 5681 shoeatorsl S69 Mbe. AppueI & Auu~ry Storu 5699 Miac.apparel&~at0m
57 m AND HOlUEFURND3HlN~ STORES 571 Fumlttm and HomdfvnbhinF Stoma 5712 Fumituroatoru 5715 Floor -- 5714 Drapery andupholrtarg mtora 5719 . . Miac.~etoru 572 Houmbeld Apphnce 8tomo 5722 How&old apphance ettme 573 Itdk& Televlslon, & coapllter stww 57151hdio,~,&dectmaiesbrar 5734 compltsr andaoftmre et0l-u 5735 Record& ~tape~~ 5736 Mueicd-tetwU 58 EATING AND DRINIUNG PLACES 581 EatingandDriabgpbea Sal2 Eatingplaau 6813 Dhk.ingphcee 59 MIscELLANEousRET~ 591 DnlgStoreeMd~~ S91t DNgstormandprqm-Y593 Llquorstoru S921 uquoretorem 593 umdM-storu smz ueedntedadb594 wralkncorushopp4Goodr5941 Sporthqgocdedbicgclerbop 5942 Bookatome 5943 stationaryetora 6944 Jewelrymtorea SW Hohhy,,tq~ixu-rbop 5946 Camera 6 photuwaphic NPPb done 5947 Gi novelty, andmuuvonirrbop 5948 Lllggegeendlee~goodr5949 awh&de-h~~ooadr 696 NonstoreRetdIae 5961 cat&gandmail+der~ b%2 lldrrchrndtinem4chhe~~

Appendix C-18 -8Ep# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appendix C

NUMERICAL LJSI’ OF SHORT TITLGS cc& Shad Titk Short l!tk 5963 Direct selling eatabliabmenta 598 Fuel Dealera 5962 Fuel oil dealen 5984 Liquefied petroleum gasdealen 5989 Fuel dealera net 

## H. FINANCE, INSURAN
ade short ntlc clde Short Titk 66 601 6611 6619 662 6621 6022 6029 603 6035 6626 666 6661 6062 608 6081 6982 609 6691 6099 61 NONDEPOSFFORY INSTITUTIONS 611 FaderaI h Fed-Sponmored Credit 6111 Federal & f~rpomored credit 614 h8Od thdit h8thltiON 6141 Personal credit imtitutiom 615 Burineas Credit Inatituthu (lb2 shortterm bu#iNN credit 6159 M&c. buainem creditlMtitlltioM 616 Mortgage Bankerr and Brokera 6162 Mortgage banken andarrapondenta 6162 Loan brokers DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS ContraI Itemme DepoeUoriu Federal reeomebanka Central maem depoeitory, net Commercial Banka National commercial bankn state commercial banh c!ommerclalbank&Nc &Vhl~ hthltiON Federal wings institution savingn iMtltuti0~ except federal crdit Unionr Federal credit uniona state credit uni0M Foni6n Bank & Branches It Agencka Foreign bank 6 bran&w &agencies Foreign tra& & intemational bank FunctloN cIooe~y Related to BankIng Nondepoait true&facilitia Functi0M related todepult banking

62 SECURITY AND COMMODITY BROKERS 621 5kcurity Brokem and De&m 6211 Security hoken anddualem 622 Cmundity Cmtmcta Brokers, Do&n 6221 commodity contracta brokem, cbalm 62s secwityandcemmodityExchMgol 599 RetaiIstorc!a,NEc 5992 Fhrista 5993 Tdmcco storssandotanda 5994 New dealen and neuntandm 5995 Optical goodatirea 5999 hfiacellaneoua rehil atma, net 

## E, AND REAL ESTATE

6221 Security andcommodity exchanga 628 Security and Caumodity Semicee 6282 Invastment advice 6289 security &ccamdlty mrvicee, net
63 621 6211 632 6221 6324 655 6221 635 6261 aa6 6261 637 6271 639 6399 64 641 6411 6s
ii:2 6612 6614 6616 6617 6619 653 6621 654 6641 665 INSURANCE cAIuuERs Life huurmce Life ineurance Medial Serrkc and Heatth Inmuruwe Amidentandhealtb inmuance HoqGtal and medical em-viceplana Fire, Marine,and CuuaIty Inmrance F’ire.marine, andcuuale inmuanm -WI-- suretyirlNram mtk InNrance Title insurance Pension, He&k, and Welfare Fun& Pemion, health, andwelfare fun& In8umnceC.anlerr,NEC INurance -NC INSURANCE AGENI’S. BROXERS, It SERVICE ha- Agents, Broken, & serrice INuranceagMtr,broke~&lervics
REAL ESTATE ReaIEatateoperatmandLueora Nonmmidential buildin operaton Apartment Mlding operaton DweUing operas ext. apattmenta Mobile homesiteoperaton Raihmdproputyla8oN Real prom lomom net Red Eatate Agenta and Mamgerr Rsalatata~fqandwqprm Title Abetract OfRue TitIeabetMctofEwa s8bdlvl&rmandDevelopem

8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-19Appemdlx C List of SIC Codes

SMNDARD INDUSlWAL CLASSIFICATION shortluk Short Titk CbdI? 6552 Subdividers anddevelopera, net ass3 Cemetery subdividers anddevelopens 67 671 6712 6719 672 HOLDING AND OTHER INVESTMENT OFFICES Holding Of!‘icee Bank holding companiee Holding compauiea, net Inre8tment Officea 6722 Manage.ment inveetmenf openand 6726 Investment officeu,net 673 Tnuta 6732 Educational, religious, etc.trueta 6733 TlutJt&Nc 679 MkceUa~~ua Invuting 6792 Oil royalty tradem 6794 Patent owners and 1-m 6798 Realeatata imwtment truete 6799 lnveetom, ncnz 

## I. SERVICES
cd4 Short Titk ewe short 7-d 70 HOTELS AND OTHJZRLOJMXNG PLACES 701 Hot& and Motela 7011 Hot& and mot& 702 Rooming and Boudhu How 7021 Roomin6andhaudin6houma 703 Campaand IkcreaUonaI Vehkk Parke 7032 Spxting and mcreational campm 7033 Traikr parka andcanpita 704 MembenNpBaaia OrganhUon Hotek 7641 Membernhip-baaia organization hot& 72 721 7211 7212 7213 7215 7216 7217 7218 7219 722 7221 723 7231 724 7241 725 7251 726 7261 729 7291 PERSONAL SERVICES Laundry, Ckaning, 0 Garment Servkea Power laundrieq family &commercial Garment preaaing &cleanem’ agenta Linen eupply Coinaperated laundries andclenning Dryclegnine plants, e-pt rug carpet andupholewy cleaning Induetxial launderer Iaundry andgarment mrviceq net Photographic Studioe, Portrait PhobgrapNc atudioe,portrait Beauty Shape B-J@ bP Barber sbope Barber ahope ShoeRep& and Shoe&no Won Shoerepair andshoe&no parlon Funeral Semke and Crematorka FUN& mrviceandcrematoriu Mkceuaneow Permnml Senku Tax return preparation eeti 73 BUSINESS SERVICES 731 Adverti& 7311 Ad* egenti 7312 outdooradvertleingeenricu 7313 Radia TV, publieher repreaentativee 7319 Adwrti&g, net 732 Credit I&porting and Mktion 7322 &wtment h collection eervicee 7323 credit reporting oervicee 733 MaUlng, Reproduction, Steno6rapNc 7331 Directmailadvertkingeervicu 7334 Photocopying 6 duplicating nerviceu 7336 Commercial photugraphy 7336 Commercial art andgraphic deign 7338 9ecretarial&courtrepoIting 734 Swvkm toBuildinp 7342 Dininfecting & peetcontrol awviom 7349 Buildingmaintenancaaerv&a, net 736 WK. Equipment Rent8lL Lculng 7862 Me&al equipment rental 7363 Heavy con&u&ion equipment rental 7369 Equipment rental & kaslng, net 736 Penonnel Supply ServIcea 7361 Employment age&e8 7363 Help NpPly oerviwe 737 CamputerandDataFkceuh6Servicea 7371 Computer progpmmhq aemicea 7372 h-- 7371 computerintegratedayetemadeaign 7374 Data prlxmdg andpreparation 7376 Information I-et&d aerviceo 7376 Computer facilitk management 7377 Cbmputer rental 6 kaidng 7378 computermainteNnce&repair 7379 computerroktdee~nec 738 MircdlunoIUB~&rrkcr 7381 Detactlvedrarmomdcarmrviceo 7299 mpelaonal mnec

Appendix C-20 -8HY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualList of SIC Codes Appemdlx C

NUMRRICAL LIST OF SHORT TITLES code Shod Tit& 7382 seNrityayatememrviwa 7383 New~ayndicateo 7384 Plloto~ kboratorlea 7389 Bueinm eervkm, net 7s 751 7513 7514 7615 7519 752 7521 763 7632 7633 7634 7636 7637 7638 764 7642 7649 76 MI8cELLANEous REPAIR SERVIC 762 Electrtai Repair Shop 7622 Radioandt&&ion repair 7623 hfkigemtion eervice and repair 7629 Ekctrical repair shop& NC 763 Watch, Clock, andJewelry Repair 7631 Watch, clock andjewehy repair 764 ReuphoWery and F’urniture Rep& 7641 ReuphoWny andfurniture repair 769 MiacelkNoue Repair shop 7692 Welding repeir 7694 Armatumrewindingahope 7699 Repair rem net 78 MOTION PKI’URES 781 Motion Picture Pruductiun & &r&a 7812 Motion picture &video production 7819 Servica allkd tomotion picturea 782 Motion Pktwe Distribution & ServIcea 7822 Motion picture andtape diet&&ion 7829 Motion picture distribution eervicae 783 Motion Pkture Tbeatera 7832 Motion picture the&em, exdriv&n 7833 DrivGn motion picture theaten 784 Video Tape Rental 7841 Video tape re&al AUTO REPAIR, SERVICES, AND PARKING Automotive Rentals, No Drlvera Truck rental and leesing, nodriven Pemenger car rental Pemenger car leasing Utility trailer rental Automobile Puklng Automobile parking Automotive Repair Shopr Top& body repair 6 paint shop Autoexhauetqstemrepalrohope Tire retreading aad repair ehopo Automotive glam replacement ahope Automotive trammbbn repair ahope General automotive repair shop0 Automotive repair Bhope,net AutomotIve Services, Except Repair Canvaahea Automotive aeeRiasr,net 79 791 7911 792 7922 7929 793 7933 794 7941 7948 799 7991 7992 7993 7996 7997 7999 86 991 6011 892 8621 803 8031 864 8941 8642 8643 8649 806 89bl 8662

81 LEGAL SERVICES 811 wsuriShort Titk AMIJSEMJDJT & RECREATION SERVICES Dance Stdhor, Schoola, and Halla Danceatudioo,echo&, end halls Roduccn, Orchestms, Entertainerr Theatrical producem andeervicsu Entertainers &entertainment group BowlinE Centerr Bowling centers conuNrclal sporta Sport0cl& manegem & promotera Racing, including track operation Mkt. Amwment, Recrecrtion Servicea Phydall fitneae facilitk Public golfcoumw Coinqeratad amusement devicea Amueement parka Membemhip eportadrrecreation cluba Amueement and recreation, net
HEALTII SERVICES Offkea %Clink-~ of Medkal Doetorr OfBcea6 clinica ofmedical doctor OfIke@and ClInka of Dentista Offlceuandclinkx ofdentieta ofncea of oateopathk Physician0 Oflicea ofcmteopathic physicians Off&a ofOther Be&h Pmctitionvr Officeeandcliniceofchiropracto~ OfBcm andclinica ofoptometrL& Ollicee andclinica ofpodiatriata Of&m ofhealth practitioners, net Nuraing and Puronal Cue FaciUtka Skilled nurhg carefacilities Intmmediate carefacilities Nursing andpemonal care,net HoepIt& General medical & rurgical hcmpitale Puychiatric hcepitale Specialty hcopitale ext. peychiatric Medkal and Dental Laboratories Medical laboratorice Dental khorat.oriee Home Health Cue Services Home health careeervicer Health andAllled Servicea, NEC Kidney dialpie centera Specialty outpatient clinim net Health andallied eervicee,net

0EM NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix C-21Appsndlx C List of SIC 423des

8111 82 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 821 Elementary and Secomdaryfkhoob 8211 Elemenbry andeecondary rlmola 822 Collegea and Unirenitk 8221 Collegeaandunivemiticm 8222 Junior collegea 823 LIbruIea 8231 Libraria 824 Voathal &ho& 8243 Data prowabg achoola 8244 Bwimmandmmtuial&mola 8249 Vocational rho04 rmc a29 Schoob & Educational Sewku, NEC 8299 Schoob & educatio~I eemicm net 8a SOCIAL SERVICES 8a2 Indhldual and Family Servka 8822 Individual andfamily aervicea 833 JobTmIaIngandRektaIServkea 8531 Jobtminingandrelntulmrvka 83s ChildDa~CueSewica 8361 chllddayare#emicao 8s6 Residential Care 8361 Eeoidentiall a39 SOCklSUVkU,NEC 8s99 Socialeemiceenec 84 841 8412 842 8422 86 MRMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION6 891 BU#k#8- STANDARD INDU- -CATION

ShvtlUk Legal eervicea

MUSEUMS, BOTANIC& ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS M-MdMGti Muaeumaandart galkim Botankal andZooktgkaI Gardena BatudaIradzoologicalgudam 8611 Busincaaamcidio~ a62 Profeuional org8niz8tioar 8921 Profeamionalorg8nizatioaa a63 Labor Organlxationa 8931 Labor organimtione 864 Clvk and Social -ona 8941 Civic andmcial amociatioly a65 PditiaI OrgmtmuoIm 9961 Politial orgmizatiolu 866 Rellghu organbatkne 8661 Religiouaorganimtjone 869 MembenNp oIXd=thM. l’!Ec 8699 Membemhip organimtio~, mc a7 871 8711 8712 8713 872 8721 87s 8731 8732 8733 8734 874 8741 8742 874a 8744 8748 88 PRIVATE HOUSEROLDS 881 P~ImteHoweholdm 8811 Private houwholda 89 899 8999 short ZXtk

ENGINEERING & MANAGEIKRNF SERVICES Engineering & Arc- Servku EngiNeringeemicea Architectuml eexvica z3umyhgaerviwe Accomtirl. Auditinr. & -bE Accounting, auditing, &B Raearch andTesting &rhea -m5alphynkalmwuch Commmkl nonphysical ramrch Noncommerckl raearch organizationa Testinglabomtoria bnagement and Publk Rehtioea Mmmgcment mwicaa Mnnqpment coxmlting aemica PubucraIationaaervicee FaciIitkeNpp&amicee BusineNcoNultlng, lla

SERVICRS, NRC EizE 

## J. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
ad8 Shd ?itk 91 EXECUTIYE, LEGISLATIVE, AND 9121 Le&lative bodia GENERAL 913 Executive and Le&lathe hnbinad 911 Executive Ofku 9121 Executiva and lagaativa cunmad 9111 Rmcutive ofBaa B19 GenemI GomrnmefIt, NRC 912 LegM8kive Bodies 9199 General govenunent, ant

Appendix C-22 -88# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualNUMERICAL LIST OF SHORT TITLES GJde 92 921 9211 922 9221 9222 922s 9224 9229 93 931 9511 94 941 9411 943 9431 944 9441 945 9451

99 shortlb& JUSTICE, PUBLIC ORDER, AND SAFETY courtl COUltd Public Order and Safety Police protection Legal counseland proeecution C4xmxtional institutions Fire protection Public order andsafety, net FINANCE, TAXATION, %MONETARY POLICY Finance, Taxation. & Monetary Policy Finance, taxation, & monetary policy ADMINKSRATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES Admin. of Educational Prom Admin. ofeducational programa Admin. of Public Health Progmnu Admin. ofpublic health programs Admin. of Social %Manpower w Admin. ofsocial% manpower programa AdmInlrtratlon ofVeterun Affairs Administration ofveterans affain code 96 961 9611 9512 953 9521 9652 96 961 %11 962 9621 953 9621 464 9641 %5 %51 966 9661 97 971 9711 972 9721 short Titl4 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND HOUSING Environmental Quality Air, water, 6%

solidwe& management Land. mineral, wildlife conemvation Housing and Urban Development Howine PW Urban andcommunity development ADMlNISTRATION OF ECONOMIC PROCRAMS Admin. ofGeneral Economic Rgiuu Admin. ofgeneral economic pmgranx~ Regulation, Admin. ofTrawportation Fkgulation, admin. oftraneportation Reguhtlon, Admin. of Utilitia Regulation, admin. ofutilitia Reguhtion ofAgricultural Marketing Regulation ofagricultural marketing Regulation Misc. Commercial Seetorn Regulation mhc. commercial mcbm Space Reearch and Technology Spacereeearch andtachnologp NATIONAL SECUlU’i’Y AND INTL. AFFAIRS National Security National mcurity International Main International &aim 

## K. NONCLASSIFIABLE ESTABLISHMENTS
shortiwe NONCIASSIFL’DLE ESTABLISHMEIVR ckdl shortnsh 9999 NonclamiBable e&abliehmenti 999 Nonelaa&flable Eatablirhmenta I

8ElY4 NPDES Permit Writers’ 

### Manual-Appendix C-23

# Appendix D

How toObtain Additional EPA DocumentsHow to Obtain Additional EPA Documents Appendix D
HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL EPA PUBLICATIONS AND GUIDANCE Throughout the NPDES Permit Writers Manual, citations to supplementary guidance materials available from U.S. EPA are provided as footnotes. Where available, these documents are distributed free of charge through the EPA Office of Water Resource Center (WRC). The WRC distributes one free copy of each publication to each customer until supplies are depleted. The address and telephone number for the WRC are provided below (see information for the Office of Wastewater Management Catalog of Publications). When the WRC’s supply of documents is depleted, requestors are referred to either the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) or the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). Information on how to order documents from NTIS and ERIC is provided in the following pages. Another important source of information regarding EPA publications isthe National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI). NCEPI is a central repository for all EPA documents, with over 5,500 titles in paper and/or electronic format available for distribution. In addition to NCEPI, EPA maintains numerous bulletin boards and “hotlines” which provide information on specific subjects, (e.g., Radon or Pollution Prevention). In addition to the materials cited in the manual, EPA has developed numerous guidance and reference documents that may also support permit writers in developing NPDES permits. Although the list of available guidance istoo voluminous to include in this Permit Writers’ Manual, acomprehensive list of supplementary documents is available through EPA. Of particular interest to NPDES permit writers, the EPA Office of Wastewater Management (OWM), and the Office of Science and Technology (OST) publish catalogs of available publications. Information on how to obtain these catalogs is provided below. 1. Off ice of Wastewater Management Catalog of Publications EPA 830/B-96-001 Copies of this catalog are available [at no cost) by writing, calling, faxing, or emailing: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Resource Center RC-4100 401 M Street S.W. Washington, DC 20460 (202) 260-7786 [Voice mail publication request line] (202) 260-0386 [Fax] Email: waterpubs@epamail.epa.gov

EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix D-1Appendix D How to Obtain Additional EPA Documents

2. Office of Science and Technology 1996 Publications Catalog Available on-line through EPA’s Office ofWater Homepage [http://www.epa.gov/watrhome/pubs.html] Or, call orwrite: US. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI) 11029 Kenwood Road, Bldg. 5 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Fax: (513) 489-8695 Email: OWOW-PUBS-NCEPI@epamait.epa.gov
Introductory information describing the OWM catalogs, aswell as detailed information on how to go about ordering EPA documents, isprovided inthis appendix.

EPA’s Office ofWastewater Management also maintains an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) that provides immediate access to many reference materials. The Point Source Information Provision Exchange System (PIPES) isafree, public, BBS and internet site (WWW compatible) designed tofacilitate the exchange ofOffice ofWaterrelated information among EPA, States, municipalities, industry, and the public. A brochure describing the features of PIPES, and information on how to access the system, is provided in this appendix.

Appendix D-2-6EFY4NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualHow to Obtain Additional EPA Documents Appendix D

United States Environmental Proteetion Agency OffIce of Water



## OFFICE OFWASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
CATALOG OF PUBLICATIONS

April 1996 Office of Wastewater Management

Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection egenc y Washington, DC 20460

88# NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix D-3Appendix D How to Obtain Additional EPA Documenb:

HOW TO USE THIS CATALOG

General Information Many publications in this catalog are distributed free of charge by the EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management IOWMI. The Office ofWastewater Management distributes documents through the EPA Office of Water Resource Center (WRCj. The WRC distributes one free copy of each publication to each customer until supplies are depleted. When OWM’r supply of u publication is depleted, requesters are referred to either the National Technical tnformation Service (NTIS) orthe Educational Resources lnformetion Center (ERIC). These clearinghouses provide copies of OWM publications for efee.
Catalog Organization This catelog divides the documents into fiftwn broad subject sections: 1ITreatment; 2) Finance; 31Operetion & Maintenance; 41Storm Water/Combined Sewer Overflows; 51Pretreatment; 6) Siosolids; 7) Small Communities; 8) Water Guslity & Standards; 91Permitting Issues; 10) Water Conservation &Efficiency; 11) Environmental Impact Statements; 12) Pollution Prevention &Control; 13) Needs & Assessments; 141Construction Grants; and 15) Miscellaneous. The Office of Wasteweter Management has assigned most documents aunique EPA number to assist in tracking the document. Documents without EPA numbers are tracked by tit/e.
Entry Format A sample pegs from the catalog appears on the next page. Entries are explained by comments in italics.

Appendix D-4 -8e# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualHow to ObCainAdditional EPA Documentt Appendix D



## WATER CONSERVATION & EFFICIENCY RitaC*Sirrrrollrll.

8ER9 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix D-5Appendix D How to Obtain Additional EPA Documenb:

You may order EPA Office of Water documents from WRC the following ways: 1) Call the WRC voice mail request line at (2021 260-7786 and order the document by title and EPA number, 21 Mail your request to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Resource Center RC-4100 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460 3) Place your order via Internet: waterpubs@epamaiI.epa.gov 4) Fax your request to WRC at (2021 260-0386.

Please allow 3-4 weeks for delivery.

You may order EPA documents from NCEPt the following ways: 1) Call NCEPI at (513) 891-6561 and order documents by EPA number, 2) Mail your request to: National Center for Environmental Publications & information 11029 Kenwood Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 31 Fax your request to NCEPl at (613) 891-6685

Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery. Documents may besent by Federal Express at the requestor’s expense.

Appendix D-6- BB# NPDES Permit Writers’ ManualHow to Obtain Additional EPA Documents Appendix D

ORDERING DOCUMENTS FROM CERI

You may order EPA Office of Research & Development documents from CERI the following ways: 1) Call CERI at (513) 569-7562 and order documents by EPA number, 2) Mail your request to: U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. Cincinnati, OH 45268 3) Fax your request to CERI at (513) 569-7566.

Please allow 3-4 weeks for delivery. Documents may be sent by Federal Express at the requestor’s expense.

BEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix D-7OFFICE OFWASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PubUcadons Ordor Form milse printAni..hti uwdv

Ywlmy&lqtQ?cQyafelwhwaibmIkrur#nl. masedbw34wakshftabiwy. shipto:

.........*......................................................*.....

......................................................................... orp-
.....................*........~.................................... Adhssi

..................................................................... citv, sm, zip
...................................*............................

w- pkon:
.................................................................

Please fax or mail this form to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Resource Center

RC4100 401 M St., SW Washington, DC 20460 Fax number: (202) 260-0386How to Obtain Additional EPA Documents Appendix D

ORDERING DOCUMENTS FROM ERIC You may order documents from ERIC the following ways: 1) Call ERIC at 1800) 276-0462 and order documents by title and ERIC number, 2) Record your order on the ERIC order form on the following page and mail it to: Educational Resources Information Center 1929 Kenny Road Columbus, Ohio 4321O-l080 3) Record your order on the ERIC order form on the following page and fax it to: (614) 292-0263 Shipping md Handling Shipping fees range from $2.00 to 810.00 Please call ERIC or see the ERIC order form on the following page for more details on shipping and handling fees.

Electronic senflces Many ERIC products, services, and directories are available electronically through the Internet. Tho ERIC staff can be contacted through e-mail lericse@osu.edul, and ERIC offers resources through 49 Gopher server Igopher.efkse.ohio-state.edul or World Wide Web (Mosaic) server [http://gopher.ericse. Ohio-state.sdul

.

8EB4 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix D-11-

Organlzatxx

Address: CitylStaulZtp: 

## q ERICICSMEEFedera!Tax!Da:31-602-5906 

# ERIC/CSMEE- EPA Order Fom

Phone FAX PO#



### ItemN-o. 1Qty.1 Abbreviated Tit& 1 Unit$ 1 kal$

I I I I



# I I ISWotal Shwlng Tax(Ohio Re%i~+~ts)

Toorder byFAX,~ransrtutrhlr,formwith Purchase &dcr orcredtt card wnbcr co:(614)2924263. or send chlsOrderFormandCheck.PO,orCheckco: ERICXSMEE 1929KCM~Road

., Colunbus.OH 432OIO00 l-&XI-276-0462or6W292-6717(Cohrrhs Arcad lmcrnar~l) .’ Total Purchase Order!hhtud s200410.00 s10.01425.00 SZS.014SO.W uo.01.vs.00 s75.01.s1m.m Overs1m.m i SWPM s2m S3.50 s6.m S8.W no.00 Addlou

It you prefer couseyour VISA or MascerCard. pleaseprovdc the folknwngmfo~~~: Creo~cCard Number: 0 VISA 0 MH.W Card Cardholder’s Name:How to Obtain Additional EPA Documents Appendix D

ORDERING DOCUMENTS FROM NTIS Telephone Orders Call the NTIS Sales Desk between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday at (800) 553-NTIS. TDD for the hearing impaired (703) 487-4639.

FAX and TELEX Orders Record your order on the NTIS order form on the following page. Faxyour order to (7031 321-8547 or (703) 321-9038. For assistance call (703) 487-4679. International Telex -64617.

Mail or Emdl Orders Record your order on the NTIS order form on the following page. Mail your order to: National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 orders@ntis.fedworld.gov Rush Service Rush service is available for an additional fee by calling l-800-553-NTIS; outside the U.S. call (703) 48774850. Rush orders are usually shipped next day by overnight courier in the U.S or by Air Mail outside the U.S. Do not mail rush ordsn.

Methods of Payment Customers may pay for NTIS products by: 1)American Express, Mastercard, or VISA; 2) check or money order payable to NTIS in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank; or in U.S. dollars drawn on an international bank with a U.S. address on the-check; or in U.S. dollars drawn on aCanadian bank; (3) an NTIS Deposit Account; or (4) purchase.order - add $7.50 per order if full payment does not accompany order - U.S., Canada, and Mexico only.
Handling Fee A $3 handling fee per total order applies to all orders except Rush Service. Postage 84SFipping Orders are shipped First Class mail or equivalent to addresses in the U.S. For Air Mail service to Canada and Mexico, add $4 per printed report and $1 per microfiche copy. Tracing an Order For questions about orders, write or call the Customer Service Department at (7031 487-4660 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

QEW NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual -Appendix D-15U.B. OEPARTWE)IT OF COMMERCE

TECMWOLOOV ADMtNtSTRATtOW 

# ORDER FORM m Ius9 MCARTMEWJ OF COMMERCE

TECWIOLOOV UmIMl~ATlON 

# ORDER FORM heels -la-- t
PRODUCT SELECTION SIDR 2

FREE CATALOOS AND INFORMATION

0 0 q q q 0 PR427 PR-186 PR-261
PR-36&3
PR-36M PR629 NTlscatakgofprodlaandservices 0

-search@Masbrcatabg cl Dirqfy ofU.S.

GpvemmentsoRwarr,lb -and- 0 yls&x scheclule

foriheU.S..

Canada. and 0 PR-746

PR-758 PR-797
PR-868 PR-889 m-936 GvdnmetntalDatafUes andSahmeCakkg NTlSAktS@3ffWtyAbsbad-)- cu!wnhdaJlTent awarenabum Em!immntHighlii

FedWoW-Free/kicessbfhe~c Mark&% ofU.S.

andFomiglGovernmentHow to Obtain Additionrl WA Documents Appendix D


## United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency Office ofWastewater Management

September 1996 

# PIPES
Point SourceInformation Provision ExchangeSystem

ThePointSourceInformationProvisionExchangeSystem(PIPES)isafree,public,electronicBulletin BoardSystem(BBS)andintemetsite(WWWcompatible!)designedtofacilitatetheexchangeofOffice ofWater-relatedinformationamongEPA,states,municipalities,industry,andthepublic. PIPESwascreatedbytheOfficeofWastewaterManagement(OWM)andisintendedsolelytofurther themissionandgoalsoftheU.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyanditspointsourcepermitting programs. PIPESoperatesvirtually 24hoursaday(shuttingdownforabout10minuteseverynight at3:OO a.m. ESTformaintenanceactivities).

PIPESallowsusersto:

l Exchangepublicinformationwithhundredsofenvironmentalprofessionals
l Selectanddownloadanyfile,orreadtextfilesonline,includingpolicydocumentsandguidance manuals
l SendandreceiveE-Mail toandfromPIPESandnon-PIPESusers NEW!
l Searchfull textbykeyword ormultiplewords;ormanuallysearchmenusandfiledirectories forspecificfiles
l Viewandaddupcomingwater-relatedconferences,meetings,etc.toacalendarofeventsNEW!
l Downloadcomputerprogramutilities.

ThePIPESBBSincludesnumerousindividualforumareas containingmessage

centersanddownloadable fileson: Pretreatment WetWeather

StormWater Watersheds NPDES Mining CombinedSewerOverflows FederalAdvisory Committees SanitarySewerOverflows GeneralWaterInformation SewageSludge BBS/WWWUtilities.

BERA NPDES Permit Wrfters’ Manual -Appendix D-21Appendix D How to Obtain Additionrl WA Documen?s

WTO CONTACT PIPES ModemBBS: 

### (703)749-9216 NEW!WWWaddress: 

### http://pipes.ehsg.saic.com telnet: pipes.ehsg.saic.com

. WHO TOCONTACT

FOR HELP. TechnicalSupport: (703)821-4697 

### NEW!Sysop

E-mail:

### brad-maguire@cpqm.saic.com
PIPESusersarestronglyencouragedtodownload(fromtheUtilities directory onPIPES)andinstall “client2.exe”whichprovidesaninterfaceforoperatingPIPESinaWindows-basedenvironmenteither through modemortheinternet. Non-intemetandnon-Windowsusersshoulddownload andinstall “riptm154.zip” whichprovidesagraphicalinterfaceusingRiptel FormoreinformationonPIPES,pleasecontact: TonySmith U.S. EPA/OWM 401MStreet,SW Washington,DC20460 Telephone:(202)260-1017 Fax:(202)260-1156 PIPESUserID:TonySmith

TousethePIPESBBS,usersneedacomputer.amodem(thefasterthebetter)andanynecessary cables andtelephonejacks to connectthemodemto thecomputerand

### tothetelephonesystem,anda communicarionssoftwareprogram. ToaccessPIPESviatheinternet,usersmusthaveaccess totheinternet(eitherviaadial-upserviceor adirectconnection). PIPEScanbeaccessed viatheintemetthroughaclient/servermode(e.g.,telnet orrlogin) orWWWnavigationalsoftware(e.g., Mosaic). The “Utilities” directory on PIPEScontainsseveralfreewarecommunication software programs availablefor downloading thatprovideauserfriendly interfacetothePIPESBBSandarehighly recommended.

Appendix D-22 -8EFVbNPDES Permit Writers’ Manual
*U.S. COVERVME4FT PRUVIINC 0FfXE:195’8-623-08#93462

# EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency 4203 Washington, DC20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300