NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

Analysis F: Program Reports

15 September 2010

DCN 0022
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 11

3.0 SEWER OVERFLOW REPORTING (INCLUDING SATELLITE SYSTEMS) .................................. 23

4.0 CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOS) ............................................... 35

5.0 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORMWATER SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4S)....................................... 43

6.0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 49

Appendix A Analysis F Team Members 
2

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 Background

On 15 October 2009, the Agency issued the Clean Water Act Action Plan, which sets 

forth a series of commitments by the Agency to revamp its NPDES enforcement program.1 A 

major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the 

NPDES program by requiring electronic reporting of NPDES information from regulated 

facilities. EPA is developing a rulemaking, NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (RIN: 2020-

AA47), to solicit input and formalize the requirements for electronic reporting. Electronic 

reporting will likely reduce the burden for facilities to report to regulatory agencies and for states 

to report to EPA. Expected benefits include lower processing costs for facilities and states, 

improved data quality and accuracy, greater data accessibility and transparency for the public, 

and an increased ability to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect water 

quality.

Compliance for most NPDES program components is not solely based on the submission 

of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed by 

inspections and the state or EPA Region’s review of periodic or incident based reports from 

permittees. These non-DMR reports (also known as “program reports”) are required under 

EPA’s regulations and provide an update to program implementation items beyond what is 

included in the permit application or permit issuance process. Assessing compliance status for 

these NPDES program components may be difficult and often requires significant resources.

This document focuses on the current requirements for program reports and the recommended 

options for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. This document was prepared by a set of 

subject matter experts from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office 

of Water. See Appendix A.

This document focuses on the NPDES sectors that use program reports to assess 

compliance. These sectors are listed in the table below.

Table 1-1: Approximate Universe of NPDES Regulated Entities

NPDES Program Element Approximate Number 

of Regulated Entities Data Source

Biosolids Generators 14,780 Clean Watershed Needs 

Survey, 2008

CAFOs (75% are likely to require permitting) 19,000 2008 CAFO Rulemaking 

(73 FR 70418)

Combined Sewer Systems 800 EPA Office of Water

Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems 7,300 EPA Office of Water

Pretreatment Programs (Approved) 1,600 PCS & ICIS-NPDES 

Separate Sewer Systems (including satellite systems) 20,000 EPA Office of Water

Note: These estimates are not mutually exclusive (e.g., POTWs are regulated as biosolids generators and may have 

an approved pretreatment program). Additionally, the pretreatment program controls discharges from approximately 

20,000 significant industrial users, which pretreatment programs are required to list and report to their approval 

authority.

 

1 These commitments are documented in the 8 November 2009, “Implementation Approach for the CWA 

Enforcement Action Plan”. This document and other key CWA Enforcement Action Plan documents are available at 

EPA’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS). [Available at: http://www.epa-otis.gov/].
3

This document presents a preliminary analysis of the overall feasibility and utility of 

electronic program reports received directly from NPDES permittees. Some general findings on 

the current collection and management of data from program reports include:

 Program reports are not standardized across regulatory programs and are generally 

managed in hard-copy formats.

 State and EPA personnel derive summary statistics from these program reports (e.g., total 

number of significant industrial users for a control authority) and enter these summary

data into PCS and ICIS-NPDES. Consequently, PCS and ICIS-NPDES do not generally 

contain facility specific information for a wide range of NPDES program sectors.

 Inconsistencies in program report data entry results in inaccurate reporting on these 

program sectors.

 The PCS and ICIS-NPDES data derived from these program reports provide a limited 

view of who is regulated and their compliance status. 

This document answers a set of questions for each NPDES sector that relies on program 

reports. These questions were developed with input by subject matter experts from OECA, OW, 

and Regions. This document also highlights recommended options for converting the collection 

and processing of program reports from paper to electronic.

1.2 Benefits and Challenges

There are a number of potential benefits to the permittees, regulatory authorities, and the 

federal government. The following table describes some of the benefits of electronically 

collecting program report data from regulated entities.

Table 1-2: Potential Benefits of Program Report Electronic Data Collection

Benefit Description Benefactor CWA Plan 

Goal Met

Decreased Burden on All 

Parties

• Decreased burden on permittee to print, mail, and 

track/store reports.

• Decreased burden on regulatory authority to 

receive reports, archive reports, and execute data 

entry related to reports.

All 

Stakeholders

Yes

Increased Accuracy of 

Data

Allowing the permittee to enter the data online 

removes all intermediate steps and resources from the 

process, reducing the chance for error and provides 

permittee with immediate notification of data entry 

errors.

All 

Stakeholders

Yes

Reusable Solution The open platform model, discussed below, leverages 

existing third-party software and avoids “re-inventing 

the wheel” costs.

All 

Stakeholders

Yes

Reduced Redundancy in 

Data Storage

Incorporating program report data from other systems

reduces the resources spent on maintaining duplicate 

systems for very similar functionality.

Public, 

Regulatory 

Authority

Yes
4

Table 1-2: Potential Benefits of Program Report Electronic Data Collection

Benefit Description Benefactor CWA Plan 

Goal Met

Increased Transparency 

of the Process

By submitting and tracking data in an online tool, the 

mystery of tracking paperwork and storing the 

physical papers is removed. The Program Reports 

would be stored online in secure environments.

Public,

Regulatory 

Authority

Yes

Meeting the data 

collection needs of the 

State as well as Federal 

Regulators

• Allowing States to have standard fields that can 

have labels customized will reduce the needs of 

states to develop their own tool to meet their 

additional needs.

• Allowing data to flow into the State systems that 

have nodes will permit flexibility of the tool for 

state use as well as federal use.

Regulatory 

Authority

Yes

Standardized processes 

and data collection for 

some program reports

These program reports could be standardized at a 

national level.

Federal 

Government

Yes

Real-time data flows Providing data and results in real time to and from 

ICIS instead of long wait times associated with 

mailing in forms will increase usability of the tool.

All 

Stakeholders

Yes

Increased data security Migrating away from paper-based reporting and 

towards electronic reporting will enable regulated 

entities to securely back-up their data offsite. This can 

protect import data from such events as fires and 

floods.2

All 

Stakeholders

Yes

Improved Asset 

Management

Migrating away from paper-based recordkeeping and 

reporting and towards electronic data management 

will help POTWs and municipalities better identify 

the causes and factors that inhibit their environmental 

performance. In particular, using third-party 

commercial software with electronic reporting can 

help POTWs and municipalities better manage their 

infrastructure capital assets to minimize the total cost 

of owning and operating them, while delivering the 

service levels customers desire.

All 

Stakeholders

Yes

Standard technology project challenges and risks will apply to converting paper-based program 

reports to electronic-based reporting. Table 1-3 lists the specific challenges that must be taken 

into consideration for this effort.

 

2

For example, on 30 April 2010 the Warwick Sewer Authority POTW was completely inundated with floodwaters 

and lost all of their paper records. They had previous backed up all of their records offsite through a commercial 

software vendor and lost no data when they re-started their operations.
5

Table 1-3: Potential Challenges of Program Report Electronic Data Collection

Challenge Description Affected Party

Each program report requires 

custom coding

Each program report will require custom coding, even if a 

tool such as Adobe Livecycle is employed. When 

implementing such a tool, careful attention will need to 

be paid to implementing in such a way that addition of 

new reports is made as efficient as possible.

Federal 

Government

Variability in state reports and 

requirements

In addition to the federal program reports requirements, 

the states may have their own requirements that could be 

constantly evolving. Managing these changes through 

user defined fields and creating labels for these fields 

could be difficult. If state changes exceed the number of 

user defined fields, additional problems would arise. In 

addition, training for individual states could be 

demanding if training materials are not updated with each 

user defined field change.

Regulatory 

Authority,

Federal 

Government

Association of program reports 

and DMRs

Some program reports require concurrent submittal of 

DMR data. DMR data are currently gathered by 

NetDMR. NetDMR also gathers attachments of program 

reports. Coordination/integration between the two 

systems will need to be performed.

All Stakeholders

Flowing data to States States would need Exchange Network nodes to receive 

data from a national tool. The state would also need to 

maintain the node. If states do not have nodes, they would 

not be able to receive any data into their own systems 

from the national tool.

Regulatory 

Authority

Standardized processes and data 

collection for Pretreatment 

Reporting

Due to the volume and variance in pretreatment program 

reports among states and federal requirements, 

standardization may not be feasible immediately. Data 

analysis and pretreatment stakeholder work groups would 

help facilitate the agreement on processes and data that 

could be standardized in a national tool.

Regulatory 

Authority,

Federal 

Government

Development of real-time batch 

data flows

Currently, there are no federal EPA NPDES systems that 

have a real-time batch data flow from application to CDX 

to ICIS and back. Given the level of integration and 

requirement that all systems be available 24 hours a day 

and 7 days a week, additional complexity is introduced.

Federal 

Government

Coordination with third-party 

commercial software vendors

EPA does not currently have a formal governance 

structure to work with third-party commercial software 

vendors.

Federal 

Government
6

1.3 General Approach for Converting Paper-based Program Reports to Electronic Data 

Collection

In short, the concept is to modify existing paper based reports that permittees must 

submit to authorized states and EPA per existing federal regulations as follows:

1. Identify candidate program reports that are practical to standardize and electronically

process, and have important value to the compliance and enforcement program. 

2. Identify the required data elements for each program report. This step should also identify

how states can add their own unique set of data elements to the national form, including 

document attachments (e.g. PDF), as needed.

3. Establish procedures consistent with the Exchange Network that will enable regulated 

entities to submit their program report data with any state addendums.

4. Test the deployment of the program report data collection in a phased approach. This 

may mean focusing on one sector initially to identify problems prior to full scale 

deployment.

5. Develop standardized, web-accessible queries that build off of program report data to 

better demonstrate who is regulated by the NPDES program and how EPA and state 

programs can evaluate and improve the effectiveness of their compliance activities.

1.4 Proposed Tools for Electronic Data Collection

The Team examined the different NPDES sectors that rely on program reports for 

demonstrating compliance. Over time EPA has added sectors to the NPDES permit program that 

do not necessarily have an individual NPDES permit with monitored discharge. The approximate 

number of regulated entities helps explain why EPA and states have developed their permitting 

and compliance activities for each NPDES program element (e.g., small MS4s are most often 

controlled through general permits).

As documented in this report there are important differences between the NPDES sectors 

that rely on program reports. These differences can include number of regulated entities, range of 

regulatory knowledge between electronic data reporters (e.g., the typical CAFO electronically

reporting to EPA will likely have less interaction with EPA or state enforcement programs); and 

different types of regulatory structures and permits (e.g., Federal pretreatment authority can be 

delegated to the State and to local governments, some program reports are managed through 

general permits). Consequently, there will likely not be one national tool to meet the needs for all 

NPDES sectors that rely on program reports for demonstrating compliance. The Team 

investigated different tools for each NPDES sector. These discussions are found in the sections 

below. 

The Team also noted that POTWs are providing multiple different reports to EPA and the 

states. These include four of the six NPDES sectors identified in Table 1-1: (1) biosolids 

generators, (2) combined sewer systems, (3) pretreatment programs, and (4) separate sewer 

systems. The Team also noted that there are existing third-party commercial software vendors 

that provide tools for POTWs to manage their operational and environmental compliance data. 

Therefore an electronic data collection tool that is integrated into a third-party commercial 

software tool might provide an integrated and easier method for POTWs to electronically

provide EPA with program report data. As discussed in more detail below, the Team identified 
7

two business models for developing an electronic reporting tool, which is the user interface for 

inputting data. These two business models are not mutually exclusive. Both can be developed to 

accommodate the different NPDES program sectors and the different needs of regulated entities.

Additionally, both models will need to conduct similar tasks in defining how the data will 

be migrated from the regulated entity into ICIS-NPDES. The following tasks can be used to 

support both business models. Both models will need to establish the procedures consistent with 

the Exchange Network that will enable permittees to submit their Federal program report data 

with an option to allow state addendums. The two models will also need to create an Extensible 

Markup Language (XML) schema for each program report that feeds data into ICIS-NPDES. 

The data element crosswalk for each program report should be harmonized with the EPA's 

Environmental Data Standard (EDSC) and Exchange Network. Development of this crosswalk 

might include the following tasks:

 Link data element names with the EDSC to ensure that the data element naming 

and definition are consistent with the EDSC standards.

 Link the data elements with the EPA's Shared Schema Components (SCC) to 

select/reuse current SCC to form the building blocks for the XML schema. In 

some cases, there might be a need to extend the current SCCs to accommodate 

new data elements based on the Exchange Network XML schema design 

guidelines.

 Create a XML schema with schema documentation. Create a schema 

conformance report and submit it to the Exchange Network Network Technical 

Group (NTG) to be approved and adopted as the standard for future data flow 

schema.

These steps will help support both business models and will help prepare EPA Regions 

and states to share program report data with EPA via the Centralized Data Exchange (CDX).

EPA will also need to develop the Flow Configuration Documents (FCD) for defining 

how EPA Regions, states, and facilities will share program report data via the Exchange Network 

node protocols and the CDX. A FCD is intended to define the supported data services and 

processes that are used to exchange information. This document will identify the entity

responsible for reporting each data element, how this data will be transmitted to EPA (e.g., webbased submission, network submission, web services) and whether the submissions will be from 

an EPA built electronic collection tool or an open platform (third party commercial software 

vendor tool). This document will also describe any software or information technology needed to 

complete these program reports and show how the standardized program report data comply with 

CROMERR.

1.4.1 Closed Platform Model (EPA Built Tool)

This model relies on EPA to build and maintain an electronic reporting tool. This model 

has the benefits of EPA controlling all aspects of electronic data collection and offering this tool 

to regulated entities at no cost. The challenges for this tool would be the costs for EPA to build 
8

and maintain this tool, market the tool, and provide customer support. EPA’s netDMR is an 

example of this type of tool for electronic data collection.3

1.4.2 Open Platform Model (Third Party Commercial Software Vendors)

This model involves partnering with commercial software vendors in order to lower the 

burden for facilities to report program report data. The open platform model is based on the IRS 

model for collection and transmission of tax data. See Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1: Schematic of IRS Open Platform Model for Collecting Tax Data

Similar to the IRS system EPA’s open platform ‘e-File’ system would rely on third-party 

commercial software vendors to provide the user interface with the regulated community. EPA’s 

open platform model would also specify how these third-party commercial software vendors 

would share program report data with EPA and the states through the Central Data Exchange and 

the Environmental Information Exchange Network.

There are many benefits to the open platform model as compared to an EPA built and 

maintained system (closed platform system). These business benefits include: 

 Through open market competition vendors will strive to develop software that is easy, 

user friendly, provide additional support, and integrate with other data management 

systems. 

 Vendors will improve and maintain the software. This will shift some of the costs of 

development to the regulatory community (removing the burden and cost from the EPA 

and states).

 Vendors are generally experts in the fields in which they develop software; they work in 

the regulated community everyday and understand the reporting needs of their clients. 

Vendors have a stake in client satisfaction.

 Vendors are likely to compete with one another through tiered services, which will keep 

costs lower for those who want minimum data management and reporting capabilities. 

This open platform model also builds on the “good government” recommendations from the 

recent White House Forum on Modernizing Government.4In particular, the report from this 

 

3

See http://www.epa.gov/netdmr/
9

forum strongly encourages Federal agencies to “consider available technology solutions before 

defaulting to costly, long-term system development efforts.” Finally, this model will lead to 

faster adoption of new software and technologies because commercial software vendors are 

likely to be more adaptable to new information technology requirements (e.g., new PC operating 

systems).

The environmental benefits of such new requirements include lower processing costs for 

facilities and states, improved data quality completeness and accuracy, greater data accessibility

and transparency for the public, and an increased ability to target and address noncompliance 

that will improve and protect the environment through shifting of resources from information 

technology tool development.

EPA will need to have appropriate controls on commercial software vendors. These 

controls will ensure that commercial software vendors are correctly and appropriately collecting 

the required data elements and correctly sharing this data with EPA and the states through the 

Central Data Exchange and the Environmental Information Exchange Network. These controls 

may include:

 Standards, Guidelines, and Procedures: EPA will identify standards (exchanges, 

schema design guidelines and conventions), CROMERR procedures, and other 

protocols to ensure the Agency is clear on what data it expects from the third-party 

system and how it expects to get this data.

 Monitor Development: EPA will need to iteratively check in with third-party software 

vendors to ensure that adoption of EPA’s open platform system is not going off 

course.

 "Certify" or Approve software: Once the software is in final testing or completed 

testing, EPA will review and “certify” the software as meeting EPA’s requirements. 

The EPA workgroup will ensure that the third-party software is receives CROMERR 

review and approval from the TRC and NTG review and approval of the schema 

adopted by the third-party software vendor.

EPA may wish to formalize this governance structure in a policy memo with a technical 

workgroup. EPA management should provide oversight and signatory approval.

1.4.3 CROMERR Compliance

EPA will need to ensure that both the closed model (EPA built tools) and open model 

(third party commercial software) includes the appropriate identity-proofing, authentication, and 

encryption standards for demonstrating compliance with Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation (CROMERR). EPA will need to show how the program report data from the user 

front end tool will identify the name of the responsible official attesting to the accuracy of the 

submission and how this official is subject to criminal sanctions for misreporting or other fraud. 

 

4

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/modernizing_government.
10

1.5 Potential Hybrid Approach For Any Regulated Entities Exempt from Electronic 

Reporting

EPA may exempt some regulated entities from electronic reporting. The following 

sections provide some recommendations on whether any regulated entities should be exempt 

from electronic reporting. The Team recommends that EPA use current technology to convert 

paper-based standardized forms to electronic data if EPA does exempt some regulated entities 

from electronic reporting. Current technology allows for regulated entities to provide their data 

on paper-based forms that allow for easy conversion to electronic data. In particular, Optical 

Character Recognition (OCR) scanning systems allow for regulated entities that are exempt from 

electronic reporting to send their program data to EPA on standardized forms that can be read by 

OCR scanning systems. 

These systems take scanned images and use computer software to recognize the shapes of 

printed or handwritten characters such as numbers and letters and store them as computerreadable data. Using this business model, EPA would require exempt regulated entities to use 

standardized forms, available via EPA’s website, to hand record their data. These regulated 

entities would then send their completed standardized forms to an EPA central location. EPA 

would then use its OCR scanning equipment to read the data from these completed forms and 

transmit this data to ICIS-NPDES. EPA would establish record retention procedures for the 

paper forms and retain the scanned versions of these forms permanently. 

Using OCR scanning systems would reduce the burden on those regulated entities 

identified by EPA as not capable of performing electronic reporting, while also providing EPA, 

states, and the public with the benefits of electronically managing and reporting program data. 
11

2.0 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT

2.1 Overview

Wastewater treatment necessarily produces at least two end products: effluent and 

sewage sludge. Other end products include methane and other gases for energy and water for 

reuse. All wastewater generated in homes, businesses, industries, and other venues that is 

conveyed to wastewater treatment plants is treated to allow effluent discharges or beneficial uses. 

Sewage or wastewater is likewise treated at POTWs to generate sewage sludge for beneficial use 

or disposal. Sludge treatment usually involves a variety of processes (e.g., aerobic or anaerobic 

microbial degradation, time and temperature, high pH, lime stabilization and dewatering). Both 

effluent and sewage sludge require treatment to ensure that their release into the environment is 

protective of human health and the environment as required by the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 

ability to effectively treat and return wastewater and sewage sludge to the environment in a 

protective manner is of paramount importance from both a public health and an environmental 

perspective.5 Without proper controls biosolids can present health hazards and cause water 

quality impairments. 

Based upon the recently released 2008 CWNS Report to Congress, there are now only

14,780 POTWs, which would represent an updated universe of sewage sludge (biosolids) 

generators. Note that the same, (updated with more accurate data from the states) more recent 

2008 CWNS Report to Congress indicates that the 14,780 POTWs serve 73.7% of the U.S. 

population (226,302,213) and treat over 32.345 billion gallons of wastewater. 

In almost equal amounts these biosolids are either beneficially re-used (e.g., agriculture 

amendments) or disposed (e.g., municipal landfill, incineration). This number will continue to 

increase with population growth and more stringent treatment requirements (e.g. nutrient 

removal). The most recent national survey estimated that over seven million tons (dry weight) of 

biosolids were nationally generated by POTWs in 2004.

6 Additionally, the management of the 

septage removed from the numerous onsite/decentralized treatment systems is also covered by 

the Part 503 requirements. EPA’s biosolids regulations (40 CFR 503) also regulate biosolids 

incinerators. There are approximately 112 biosolids incinerators.7

Sections 307 and 405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) set the statutory framework for 

regulating sewage sludge (“biosolids”). EPA has established a protective regulatory framework 

to manage the use and disposal of biosolids at 40 CFR Part 503. These are minimum 

requirements for the safe management of biosolids. EPA used joint authority under RCRA, 

CAA, and the CWA to establish the Part 503 requirements in 1993. Part 503 is a “self 

implementing” rule, which means that all entities producing biosolids are regulated whether or 

not these requirements are included in a permit. This means that all POTWs and operators 

managing septage wastewater are regulated by Part 503.

 

5 National Research Council, 2002. “Biosolids Applied To Land: Advancing Standards And Practices.” [Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/nas/complete.pdf].

6 North East Biosolids and Residual Association, 2007. A National Biosolids Regulation, Quantity, End Use & 

Disposal Survey, July 20th. [Available at: www.nebiosolids.org]

7 NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plant Incineration (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1063.11, OMB Control 

Number 2060-0035, 27 July 2010 (75 FR 43972).
12

Depending on use or disposal practice, EPA’s biosolids regulations require monitoring of 

up to 10 metals and pathogen indicators. Recently detected contaminants in biosolids have 

become an area of emerging concern (e.g., pharmaceuticals, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), 

flame retardants). In 2009, the results of the Office of Water Targeted National Sewage Sludge 

Survey were released.8This effort focused on determining what chemicals and pollutants were 

found in sewage sludge.

Limited biosolids data can be found in databases such as PCS/ICIS and the Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI). More detailed information on monitoring and biosolids management is 

provided in annual reports submitted by Class I sewage sludge management facilities, which are 

facilities that have an approved pretreatment program or are in a state that has assumed direct 

pretreatment responsibilities under 40 CFR 403.10(e) (the list currently includes Connecticut, 

Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska). EPA and approved states can also identify other 

sewage sludge management facilities as Class I facilities because of the potential for its sewage 

sludge use or disposal practice to affect public health and the environment adversely.

9

The vast majority of these annual reports are submitted in hard-copy format to EPA’s 

regions. These reports document the measures taken to protect watersheds from the mishandling 

of biosolids. However, key data from these reports are not generally available or shared because 

no easily accessible data storage is maintained. The following quote provides a good example of 

the effort required to complete a one-time assessment of the biosolids program, which mostly

relies on non-standardized hardcopy reports: “Consistent data on biosolids management is 

difficult to obtain and compile...With no centralized data collection and storage system yet in 

place, disparate pieces of data from various states and USEPA regions must be painstakingly 

collected and interpreted to produce a useful national picture.” North East Biosolids and 

Residuals Association, “A National Biosolids Regulation, Quality, End Use & Disposal Survey,” 

20 July 2007. [Funded by CWA 104(b) grant.]

Only eight states have been formally authorized to carry out the program for EPA relative 

to at least part of the sewage sludge (biosolids) management practices under Part 503. Not all 

authorizations are complete (e.g., Michigan has land application only, while Utah and South 

Dakota have adopted 503 by reference. Some states incorporate EPA's biosolids regulaton in 

other state programs outside of their NPDES program (e.g., solid waste management programs).

2.2 Current Program Reporting

Both PCS and ICIS have data fields for collecting and reporting some aspects of biosolids 

data. Some of these data fields are identified as Water Enforcement National Data Base

(WENDB) data elements.10 It is the responsibility of the biosolids regulatory authority to enter 

WENDB data elements into PCS and ICIS. For compliance monitoring inspections the 

 

8

See: http://epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/tnsss-overview.html.

9

See: 40 CFR 503.9 (c).

10 U.S. EPA, 1994. “WENDB Data Elements for Sludge. Memorandum from Carol Galloway, Chief, Compliance 

Information Evaluation Branch, and Richard Kuhlman, Acting Branch Chief, Policy Development Branch, January 

25th.
13

corresponding PCS code is “Z.” To enter biosolids inspections in ICIS-NPDES, data entry

professionals use the CWAS program code and the appropriate compliance monitoring type code 

(i.e., CEI or SA1). A review of these two databases shows that there are relatively little biosolids 

data in either PCS or ICIS. 

EPA’s biosolids regulations (40 CFR 503) require annual reports from Class I sewage 

sludge management facilities to the appropriate state or EPA region. For example, Class I

sewage sludge management facilities must report annually to the permitting authority biosolids 

monitoring data, quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate end use or disposal of the biosolids, end 

use or disposal location(s), and vector and pathogen reduction measures. However, there is no 

standardized format for these reports nor are the data in these reports generally collected 

electronically. 

The most recent national review of state management of biosolids data found a variety of 

data collection, management, and reporting activities.

11 Ten states are able to efficiently produce 

data on biosolids management projects in their state. Nine states require extensive help to collect 

and analyze their state data on biosolids management projects. Additionally, EPA Regions 8 and 

9 maintain databases on biosolids management projects and can easily produce biosolids data for 

eight states.

There is no data collection on sludge removal from septic systems, which is regulated by

EPA’s regulations (Part 503). Additionally, there are recordkeeping requirements but no Federal 

reporting requirements for non-Class I sewage sludge management facilities.

2.3 Biosolids Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule

The Team recommends converting the annual biosolids program report to an electronic 

report and expanding electronic reporting to all sewage sludge management facilities generating 

290 dry metric tons or more of sewage sludge per year. The following tables provide a listing of 

the data elements that are specific to the biosolids annual program report. 

Treatment Processes

This data element identifies the biosolids treatment processes at the 

facility. For example, this may indicate whether primary, secondary, and 

tertiary treatment is being used, and the type of the sewage sludge 

treatment process or processes used, including drying processes.

Biosolids Class This data element will identify the class or classes (e.g., Class A, Class A 

EQ, Class B) of biosolids generated by the facility. 

Management Practice

This data element will identify the type of biosolids management practice 

or practices (e.g., land application, surface disposal, incineration) for 

biosolids generated by the facility. 

Sampling and analytical methods

Describe the representative sampling processes for compliance with 40 

CFR 503, 40 CFR 136, or an issued NPDES permit including analytical 

methods used to analyze for enteric viruses, fecal coliforms, helminth ova, 

Salmonella sp., and regulated metals, as well as the reporting limit. 

 

11 North East Biosolids and Residual Association, 2007. A National Biosolids Regulation, Quantity, End Use & 

Disposal Survey, July 20th. [Available at: www.nebiosolids.org]
14

Biosolids Volume Amount

This is the amount (in dry metric tons) of biosolids. If there is more than 

one biosolids class, then the facility will separately report a biosolids 

volume amount for each biosolids class and management practice. 

Biosolids Receiving Site Name

This is the name of the off-site facility receiving biosolids from this 

facility. If the biosolids generator sends biosolids to more than one 

receiving facility, then the biosolids generator will report each site name 

for each biosolids class code and management practice code.

Biosolids Receiving Site Street 

Address This is the street address, if applicable, of the Biosolids Receiving Site.

Biosolids Receiving Site City This is the city name of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if applicable.

Biosolids Receiving Site State This is the state code of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if applicable.

Biosolids Receiving Site Zip Code This is the zip code of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if applicable.

Biosolids Receiving Site Latitude

The measure of the angular distance on a meridian north or south of the 

equator for the Biosolids Receiving Site. If this is a field, the 

measurement should be made at the center of the field. Entered in either 

Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal 

degrees. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: 

EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

Biosolids Receiving Site Longitude

The measure of the angular distance on a meridian east or west of the 

prime meridian for the Biosolids Receiving Site. If this is a field, the 

measurement should be made at the center of the field. Entered in either 

Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal 

degrees. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data 

Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: 

EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

Biosolids Monitored Parameter

This is the monitored parameter for each biosolids class code and each 

management practice. If the biosolids generator produces more than one 

biosolids class, then the biosolids generator will separately report each 

monitored parameter for each biosolids class and management practice.

Biosolids Monitored Parameter 

Concentration This is the concentration value of the Biosolids Monitored Parameter.

Biosolids Monitored Parameter 

Units

This is the measurement unit (e.g., mg/l) associated with the Biosolids 

Monitored Parameter Concentration 

Actual Measured Cumulative 

Pollutant Loading Rate

This is the measured cumulative amount of a pollutant (on a dry weight 

basis) that has been applied to an area of land (Biosolids Receiving Site) 

as specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 503. The list of pollutants to be 

measured is at 40 CFR 503.13, Table 2. This value is the total mass of a 

particular pollutant (on a dry weight basis) that has been applied to a unit 

area of land during the entire life of the application site. When the Actual 

Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate exceeds the Cumulative 

Pollutant Loading Rate (CPLR) limit for any pollutant, as identified at 40 

CFR 503.13, Table 2, no additional bulk biosolids subject to CPLR limits 

may be applied to the site.

Actual Measured Annual 

Application Rate

This is the measured annual application rate (on a dry weight basis) that 

has been applied to an area of land (Biosolids Receiving Site). This value 

is compared against the Annual Pollutant Loading Rate (see 40 CFR 

503.13, Table 4) to determine compliance for each Biosolids Receiving 

Site for each year.

Disposition of Incinerator Ash This provides information regarding the method of disposal of incinerator 

ash (e.g., in surface disposal units, use in cement kilns, or other practice).
15

2.4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major 

limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, 

analysis, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data 

management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the 

main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficiently clear guidance and support 

materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding other NPDES programs (e.g., 

pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently, EPA’s data systems are not fully

meeting the needs of EPA, the state NPDES programs, and the public’s need for information to 

address questions about the activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of 

clarity undermines the importance of current data collection, management, analysis, and 

reporting.

The Team behind this paper identified the following key programmatic and compliance 

questions and metrics. These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, 

programmatic needs (e.g., re-issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance 

measures), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic 

and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the biosolids sector 

that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance 

activities.

2.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal?

The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the annual biosolids 

report identified for conversion from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet 

the needs of EPA and the states. EPA and the states will be able to use this data to more 

effectively reach the inspection goals for the biosolids program. The inspection goal for biosolids 

inspections is that each major POTW receive at least one biosolids inspection every five years. 

POTW sludge land disposal operations should receive at least one biosolids inspection every five 

years. These inspections may be conducted in conjunction with compliance inspections at major 

and minor POTWs. Additional inspections may also be conducted to respond to citizen 

complaints. 

Additionally, the biosolids data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, and the 

public to more readily answer the following questions:

General Provisions

 Provide a description of the treatment technology (e.g., aerobic, anaerobic, lime stabilization, 

composting, drying practices) in place at the facility, as well as any pretreatment processes in 

place.

 Does your facility generate Class A or Class B? Include a description of how the Class A or 

Class B pathogen requirements in Section 503.32 are met (including time and temperature or 

high pH as applicable), the pathogen density or indicator organism density results per Section 
16

503.32, and which Vector Attraction Reduction requirement per Section 503.33 was utilized 

for bulk sewage sludge applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, a reclamation 

site, or a lawn or home garden; sewage sludge sold or given away in a bag or other container 

for application to land; or when sewage sludge is place on an active sewage sludge unit. 

Include any applicable calculations (e.g., Van Kleek VS-in was 0.85 and VS-out was 0.65).

 Quantity of biosolids generated and percentage going to beneficial use, disposal, or other 

management practices.

 Names of all parties receiving the sewage sludge, as well as information on any blended 

material.

 For any material that is subsequently blended after leaving the POTW, parties must ensure 

compliance with pathogen reduction and agronomic rate requirements.

 What sampling techniques and analysis methods were used to ensure the applicable 

requirements in 40 CFR 503 were met, including the appropriate reporting limits in the 

analytical methodology and holding times for pathogens and indicator organism?

Land application and surface disposal:

 What is the concentration of each pollutant listed in Tables 1 through 4 of Section 503.13 and 

Tables 1 and 2 of Section 503.23, as applicable?

 What are the N, P, K values?

 A description of how the site restrictions (e.g., grazing, harvesting, and public access 

restrictions) in Section 503.32 are met for each site on which sewage sludge is applied.

 A description of how management practices in Section 503.14 and Section 503.24 are met for 

each site on which sewage sludge is applied, including the calculation of agronomic rate and 

the actual rate applied.

 The location, by either street address or latitude/longitude, to which sewage sludge was used 

or disposed (by entrance).

 The amount of sewage sludge (i.e., metric tons) applied to each site, the number of hectares, 

and the crop or site, as well as date and time (or range of time / time period).

 Did the preparer provide to the land applier with the organic and ammonium nitrogen 

concentrations? What were those concentrations?

 For domestic septage applied to land, provide the location, number of acres, date and time of 

application, the nitrogen requirement for the crop or vegetation grown on each site during a 

365 day period, the rate in gallons per acre, and a description of how the pathogen and vector 

attraction reduction requirements are met.

Incineration:

 What is the concentration of lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel in the sewage 

sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator (SSI)?

 What are the total hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide concentrations in the exit gas from the 

SSI stack?

 Provide information that indicates the NESHAP requirements for beryllium and mercury are 

met.

 What are the combustion temperatures, including the max combustion temperature, for the 

SSI?
17

 What are the values for the air pollution control device operating parameters?

 What are the oxygen concentration and other information used to measure moisture content 

in the exit gas from the SSI stack?

 What are the sewage sludge feed rate and stack height for the SSI?

 What is the dispersion factor for the site where the SSI is located?

 Provide the control efficiency for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel for each SSI (i.e., some 

POTWs have more than one SSI. The control efficiency is determined using performance 

testing of the SSI and the appropriate equation from Section 503.43.

 Provide the daily concentrations for lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel calculated 

using the appropriate equations in Section 503.43.

 The risk-specific concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, and nickel are provided in Table 1 of 

Section 503.43. Provide the risk specific concentration for chromium calculated using the 

appropriate equation in Section 503.43.

Program Integrity Data:

 What is the concentration of each state-regulated priority pollutant for which a facility is 

required to monitor? [Results for 'other' pollutants could help inform the Agency's activities 

related to 'Emerging Contaminants'].

 State agency regulating biosolids.

 Number of full time staff for their biosolids program.

 Management and other practices (e.g., setbacks from surface waters or neighboring 

properties, slope restrictions, or certification and monitoring) where the state's biosolids 

regulations more restrictive than Part 503.

 Provide an annual report containing a summary of the items for each facility in 2.4.1 (or 

Table 2-1 / 2-1) to EPA by May 1 of each calendar year.

 Facilities inspected and each land application site, landfill, and incinerator inspected.

 Number and type of enforcement actions taken.

2.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

Improvements to Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO) database and 

Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) database will be required in order to make full use 

of the biosolids data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team 

recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop webbased annual reports for the biosolids sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness 

of the NPDES program and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual 

Noncompliance Report for individual permitted non-majors,12 these web-based reports will use 

the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query

results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports 

would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. 

The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These webbased annual reports would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such 

as ICIS, IDEA, OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the 

Exchange Network to support all the functionality. 

 

12 See http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/
18

These web-based annual reports can also provide the public with an easy way to assess the 

performances of different regulatory agencies.

2.5 Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and 

Metrics

The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able 

to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule. 

Table 2-2: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

Subpart A – General Provisions 

1. Treatment Processes: What 

treatment process are used at your 

facility?

 Describe any pretreatment processes in 

place for any given pollutant

 Does your facility practice primary, 

secondary, and tertiary treatment?

 Indicate the process or processes used 

(e.g., aerobic or anaerobic digestion, 

lime stabilization, centrifugation or 

other drying practices, composting)

1

2. Does your facility generate Class 

A or Class B biosolids?

 Indicate Class A, Class A EQ, or Class 

B

 Pathogen or indicator organism 

densities

 Describe treatment process used, per 

Section 503.32

 Describe the vector attraction reduction 

method used, per Section 503.33

1

3. Quantity: What volume of sewage 

sludge does your facility 

generate?

 Metric Tons dry weight

 Per day

 Per annum

 If a partial treatment facility, tonnage 

sent to other POTWs; indicate which 

POTW completes the treatment

 Tonnage sent to other sewage sludge 

preparers, such as regional composters 

or heat drying facilities

1, 2

4. Selection of a use or disposal 

practice: Which 40 CFR 503 

management practice was 

utilized?

 Volumes for each management practice 

(i.e., use, disposal, or storage)

 Volume used for other management 

options (e.g., energy recapture)

 Names of all parties receiving the 

sewage sludge

 Information on any blended material

1, 2
19

Table 2-2: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

5. Sampling and analysis: What 

sampling and analytical methods 

were used to ensure the applicable 

requirements in 40 CFR 503 were 

met when sewage sludge is 

applied to land, placed on a 

surface disposal site, or fired in a 

sewage sludge incinerator?

 Description of the representative 

sampling process

 Analytical methods used to analyze for 

enteric viruses, fecal coliforms, 

helminth ova, Salmonella sp., and 

regulated metals, as well as the 

reporting limit

 Description of the appropriate holding 

time (i.e., 6 h ours or 12 hours), 

depending on the analytical method 

used for Salmonella or fecal coliforms

 For any materials that are subsequently 

blended or sent to other preparers (e.g., 

composters or heat drying facilities), 

other than the POTW, parties must 

ensure compliance with pathogen 

reduction and agronomic rate 

requirements

1, 2, 3

Subpart B – Land Application

6. What is the concentration of each 

pollutant listed in Tables 1 

through 4 of Section 503.13, as 

applicable?

 Ceiling concentration in mg/kg dry 

weight basis

 Cumulative pollutant loading rate in 

kg/ha

 Monthly Average pollutant 

concentrations in mg/kg dry weight 

basis

 Annual pollutant loading rate in kg/ha 

per 365 day period

1, 3

7. What were the values for N, P, K?  Concentrations for nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and potassium 1

8. How were management practices 

and operational standards in 

Sections 503.14 and 503.15, 

respectively, met?

 Requirements for protecting threatened 

and endangered species

 The annual whole sludge application 

rate for sewage sludge that does not 

cause any of the annual pollutant 

loading rates in Table 4 of Section 

503.13 to be exceeded

 A description of how the site 

restrictions (e.g., grazing, harvesting, 

and public access restrictions) are met 

for each site on which Class B sewage 

sludge was applied

1, 3
20

Table 2-2: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

9. What is the location, amount, 

number of hectares, crop or site, 

nitrogen requirements, and date 

and time for each site to which 

sewage sludge was applied?

 Street address

 Latitude / longitude

 Metric tons applied to land

 Crop or site to which sewage sludge 

was applied

 Nitrogen requirement for the crop or 

vegetation grown on each site during a 

365 day period

 Did the preparer provide to the land 

applier with organic and ammonium 

nitrogen concentrations

 NPDES Permit Number, if applicable, 

of the person who prepares or applies 

the sewage sludge

1, 3

Subpart C – Surface Disposal

10. What is the concentration of each 

pollutant listed in Tables 1 and 2 

of Section 503.23, as applicable?

 Pollutant concentrations in mg/kg dry 

weight basis

 Pollutant concentrations in mg/kg dry 

weight basis and distance from unit to 

boundary of property line up to 150 

meters

1

11. What is the location to which 

sewage sludge was disposed?

 Street address for disposal unit

 Latitude / longitude 1

Subpart E - Incineration

12. What is the concentration of lead, 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and 

nickel per Section 503.43?

 Risk specific concentration in ug/m3

1

13. What are the total hydrocarbons 

or carbon monoxide 

concentrations in the exit gas from 

the SSI stack? or

What are the CO emissions, and, 

in certain cases, the monthly 

average CO concentration?

 Concentration of THC or CO in ppm

 Monthly / yearly average

1

14. What correction factor for percent 

moisture (Section 503.44, 

equation 7) and oxygen (Section 

503.44, equation 8) was used?

 Decimal fraction of the percent 

moisture in the sewage sludge 

incinerator exit gas in hundreths

 Percent oxygen in the sewage sludge 

incinerator stack exit gas (dry 

volume/dry volume)

1

15. Were NESHAP requirements for 

beryllium and mercury met?

 Information that indicates the 

requirements in the National Emission 

Standard for beryllium in subpart C of 

40 CFR part 61 were met

 Information that indicates the 

requirements in the National Emission 

Standard for mercury in subpart E of 40 

CFR part 61 were met

1
21

Table 2-2: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

16. What were the combustion 

temperatures, including the max 

combustion temperature for your 

SSI?

 SSI combustion temperature, including 

maximum temperature, in degrees F 1

17. What are the values for the air 

pollution control device operating 

parameters?

 SSI operating parameters are specified 

by the permitting authority and shall be 

based on information obtained during 

the performance test of the sewage 

sludge incinerator to determine 

pollutants control efficiencies

1

18. What is the oxygen concentration 

and other information used to 

measure moisture content in the 

exit gas from the SSI stack?

 Oxygen concentration

1

19. What is the sewage sludge feed 

rate for the SSI?

 Feed rate(s) 1

20. What is the dispersion factor for 

the site where the SSI is located?

 Dispersion factor(s) 1

21. What is the control efficiency for 

lead, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel 

for each SSI (i.e., some POTWs 

have more than one SSI)?

 The control efficiency is determined 

using the performance testing of the SSI 

and the appropriate equation from 

Section 503.43

1

22. What is the daily concentration 

for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and 

nickel?

 Calculated using the appropriate 

equation in Section 503.43 1

23. What is the risk-specific 

concentration for chromium?

 The risk-specific concentration for 

chromium used in equation 5 shall be 

obtained from Table 2 of Section 

503.43 or shall be calculated using 

equation 6, as specified by the 

permitting authority

1

24. What is the SSI stack height?  SSI Stack height in meters

 When the sewage sludge incinerator 

stack height is equal to or less than 65 

meters, the actual sewage sludge 

incinerator stack height shall be used in 

an air dispersion model, as specified by 

the permitting authority, to determine 

the dispersion factor (DF) in equation 

(5).

 When the sewage sludge incinerator 

stack height is greater than 65 meters, 

the creditable stack height shall be 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.100(ii) and the creditable stack 

height shall be used in an air dispersion 

model, as specified by the permitting 

authority, to determine the dispersion 

factor (DF) in equation (5)

1
22

Table 2-2: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

25. What was the disposition of 

incinerator ash?

 Disposal in surface disposal units, use 

in cement kilns, or other practice 2

Program Integrity Data

26. What is the concentration of each 

state-regulated priority pollutant 

for which your facility is required 

to monitor?

 Concentration on a dry weight basis

4

27. Which State agency regulates 

biosolids in your state?

 Department

 Biosolids staff contact information 5

28. What management practice is 

used in the state? Are the states’ 

biosolids regulations more 

restrictive than 40 CFR 503? If so, 

in what areas are state regulations 

more restrictive?

 Setback in meters from surface waters 

or neighboring properties

 Slope restrictions

 Other use or disposal restrictions

 Certification and monitoring 

requirements

2,5

29. Which of your facilities and use 

or disposal sites were inspected?

 List by each facility, land application 

site, landfill, and incinerator 1,3

30. What is the number and types of 

enforcement actions taken during 

the preceding calendar year?

 Number of enforcement actions

 Type of enforcement action

 Disposition of enforcement action

1,2,3

1/ Ensure that Part 503 requirements have been fulfilled and to help provide proper oversight and 

compliance.

2/ This is needed to ensure that all sewage sludge use and disposal is accounted for, that long term storage is 

accounted for, that sewage sludge is not sent to landfills that do not meet the requirements in Part 258, and 

that Federal Facilities, privately owned facilities, and independent sludge-only facilities (e.g., composters 

and alkali treaters) are automatically required to report, as well as POTWs.

3/

Information by land appliers are necessary in order to track compliance with site restrictions and 

management practices.

4/ Results for “other” pollutants could help inform the Agency’s activities related to “Emerging Trace 

Contaminants”

5/ Provides updated contact information for a variety of issues related to compliance and complaints. 
23

3.0 SEWER OVERFLOW REPORTING (INCLUDING SATELLITE SYSTEMS)

3.1 Overview

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), and Bypass 

Events are of special concern to public health because they expose citizens to bacteria, viruses, 

intestinal parasites, and other microorganisms that can cause series illness such as cholera, 

dysentery, hepatitis, cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis. Sensitive populations – children, the 

elderly and those with weakened immune systems - can be at a higher risk of illness from 

exposure to sewage sewer overflows. Runoff from rain and melting snow is responsible for 

beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation.

Municipal sewage discharges contribute to 15 percent of impaired rivers and streams, 6 

percent of impaired lakes, and 33 percent of impaired bays and estuaries. The main pollutants in 

raw sewage from municipal sewage discharges are bacteria, viruses, pathogens, excessive 

nutrients, industrial wastes, toxic pollutants such as oil and pesticides, and wastewater solids and 

debris. The Office of Water’s (OW) 2004 Report to Congress on “Impacts and Control of CSOs 

and SSOs” estimated the annual CSO discharge volume at 850 billion gallons per year.

This section of the report discusses CSOs, SSOs, and Bypass Events, as the wastewater 

pollution sources are similar (municipal sewage conduits discharging untreated sewage). The 

most significant difference between these sectors is that CSOs were designed to have overflows 

above a designed flow threshold (in order to protect the treatment works). Therefore, the location 

of each CSO outfall is known and permitted. SSOs are a result of blockages in sewage treatment 

conduits (e.g., fats, oils, grease, roots) and are the result of inadequate sewer inspection and 

cleaning. SSOs are unplanned events and should not be permitted for discharge. Bypass Events 

are largely unplanned events due to large rainfall events.

3.1.1 Combined Sewer Systems (CSSs)

Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are designed to collect stormwater runoff, domestic 

sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe and transport it to a sewage treatment plant, 

where it is treated and then discharged to a water body. During periods of rainfall or snowmelt, 

however, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the 

sewer system or treatment plant. When the capacity of the system or the treatment plant is 

exceeded, the excess wastewater overflows directly into nearby streams, rivers, or other water 

bodies, typically violating water quality standards. CSSs can also have Bypass Events due to 

large rainfall events.

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are primarily caused by wet weather events, when 

the combined volume of wastewater and stormwater entering the system exceeds the capacity of 

the CSS or treatment plant. Overflow frequency and volume varies from system to system and 

from outfall to outfall within a single CSS. Discharges from a CSS during dry weather, referred 

to as dry weather overflows, are prohibited under the NPDES program. Combined sewer 

overflows can also back up into buildings, including private residences.
24

There are 800 NPDES permits that regulate 853 CSO universes with 8,828 outfalls. 

There is not a one-to-one relationship between NPDES permit coverage and a combined sewer 

system, as a NPDES permit may regulate more than one CSO and one CSO may have multiple 

NPDES permits. These combined sewer systems are heavily concentrated in the Northeast (MA, 

ME), Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA), and Midwest (IL, OH, IN) and in older urban communities. 

Currently OW and OECA separately track combine sewer systems and outfalls.

Table 3-1: Number of CSO Permits

EPA Region CSO NPDES 

Permit Count

1 83

2 97

3 213

4 24

5 340

6 0

7 24

8 1

9 3

10 15

Source: OWM CSO Data

3.1.2 Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSSs)

Properly designed, operated, and maintained separate sanitary sewer systems should 

collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into them to a publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) for treatment. However, releases of raw sewage from municipal separate sanitary

sewers can occur in these systems. These types of releases, called sanitary sewer overflows 

(SSOs), may be caused by poor sewer collection system management, operation and 

maintenance, and often pose a substantial risk to public health and environment. SSSs can also 

have Bypass Events due to large rainfall events.

EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs occur each year in the United 

States, resulting in releases of between 3 billion and 10 billion gallons of untreated wastewater.13

About 15,500 wastewater treatment facilities have sanitary sewer collection systems which may

have SSOs. In addition, there are at least 5,000 municipal satellite collection systems with 

sanitary sewers, although EPA does not have a good estimate of these facilities. Municipal 

satellite collection systems collect sewage and transfer it to another collection system or POTW 

for treatment and discharge. The universe includes approximately 63 large municipal authorities 

(total treatment capacity >100mgd), and approximately 516 medium municipal authorities (total 

treatment capacity >10mgd, but <100mgd). 

 

13 U.S. EPA, 2004. “ Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSO,” EPA 833-R-04-001, August.
25

Most municipal sanitary sewer collection systems currently do not have an NPDES 

permit to require reporting of SSOs. Most permits for sewage treatment facilities do not 

specifically refer to SSOs. Rather, standard permit conditions, including requirements to report 

non-compliance events, are used to address reporting and other requirements for SSOs. This has 

resulted in inconsistency in reporting types of SSOs and building backups. SSOs are prohibited 

and thus should not be authorized in NPDES permits.
26

3.2 Current CSO/SSO Reporting

Table 3-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart: SSO, CSO & Bypass

REGULATION

NUMBER REPORT REPORTINGENTITY

RECIEVING

ENTITY FREQUENCY REPORT DATE

40 CFR 

122.21(g)(7)(iii)

Quantitative Data Report for 

certain pollutants

Applicant/POTWs Control 

Authority

Once per event When applying for a 

permit

40 CFR 

122.21(k)(5)(i)

Estimated daily maximum, daily 

average, and source of information 

for each outfall for certain 

pollutants or parameters

Applicant/POTWs Control 

Authority

Once per event When applying for the 

permit

40 CFR 122.41 

(l)(1) (reporting 

requirements 

applicable to all 

NPDES permits)

Notice Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

When any planned physical 

altercations or additions occur 

to the permitted facility

As soon as possible

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(2)

Advance Notice Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

When there are planned 

changes in the permitted 

facility or activity which may 

result in noncompliance with 

permit requirements

Advance notice

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(3)

Transfer Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

When the director requires 

modification or revocation and 

reissuance of the permit to 

change the name of the 

permittee and incorporate such 

other requirements as may be 

necessary under the CWA

Prior to transfer

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(4)

Discharge Monitoring Report 

(DMR) or forms provided or 

specified by the Director for 

reporting results of monitoring of 

sludge use or disposal practices

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

At the intervals specified 

elsewhere in this permit

At the intervals specified 

elsewhere in this permit

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(5)

Compliance Schedules Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Following interim and final 

requirements contained in any 

compliance schedule 

No later than 14 days 

following each schedule 

date
27

Table 3-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart: SSO, CSO & Bypass

REGULATION

NUMBER REPORT REPORTINGENTITY

RECIEVING

ENTITY FREQUENCY REPORT DATE

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6)(i)

24 hour oral report (requirement to 

report SSO discharge that may 

endanger health or the environment 

– may be waived)

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

When Permittee observes any 

noncompliance which may 

endanger health or the 

environment – once per event

Within 24 hours of 

becoming aware of 

circumstances 

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6)(i)

Writen 24 hour report (requirement 

to report SSO discharge that may 

endanger health of the environment 

– may be waived)

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

When Permittee observes any 

noncompliance which may 

endanger health or the 

environment – once per event

Within 5 days of becoming 

aware of the circumstances 

(unless waived by an 

NPDES authority)

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(7)

DMR report (requirement to report 

SSOs not reported within 24 hours

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Permit establishes frequency 

(typically once per month)

Permit established 

reporting date

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(7)

Bypass that do not exceed permit 

limits

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Permit establishes frequency 

(typically once per month)

Permit established 

reporting date

40 CFR 

122.41(l)(8)

Report of missing or incorrect facts Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

When Permittee becomes 

aware of error

Promptly after Permittee 

becomes aware of error.

40 CFR 

122.41(m)(3)(i)

Report Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Once per event Anticipated: If the 

permittee knows in 

advance of the need for a 

bypass, it must submit 

prior notice at least 10 days 

before the date of the 

bypass

40 CFR 

122.41(m)(3)(ii), 

122.41(l)(6)(i), 

and 

122.41(l)(6)(ii)(A)

24 hour oral report (Bypass which 

exceeds any effluent limitation)

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Once per event Unanticipated: Within 24 

hours from the time the 

Permittee becomes aware 

of the circumstances

40 CFR 

122.41(m)(3)(ii) 

122.41(l)(6)(i), 

and 

122.41(l)(6)(ii)(A)

Written report (requirement to 

report bypass which exceeds any 

effluent limitation)

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Once per event Within 5 days of becoming 

aware of the circumstances 

(unless waived by an 

NPDES authority)

40 CFR 122.42(c) Annual Report by operator of a Permittee/POTWs Control Annually By the anniversary of the
28

Table 3-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart: SSO, CSO & Bypass

REGULATION

NUMBER REPORT REPORTINGENTITY

RECIEVING

ENTITY FREQUENCY REPORT DATE

large or medium municipal 

separate storm sewer system or a 

municipal separate storm sewer

Authority date of issuance of the 

permit for such system

40 CFR 122.42(d) 

(storm water 

discharges)

Report on compliance with permits 

for discharge of storm water

Permittee/POTWs Control 

Authority

Once As expeditiously as 

practicable but in no event 

later than 3 years after the 

date of issuance of the 

permit

40 CFR 

122.47(a)(4)

Report on compliance or 

noncompliance with the interim or 

final requirements

Permittee/ 

POTWs

Control 

Authority

Following each interim date 

and date of final compliance

No later than 14 days 

following each interim date 

and the final date of 

compliance

40 CFR 122.48 Recording and reporting of 

monitoring results (applicable to 

State programs

Permittee/ 

POTWs

Control 

Authority 

Requirements in the permit When permit is approved 

40 CFR 123.45(a) Program reports by Director -

Quarterly

Control Authority Regional 

administrator

(who then 

submits to 

EPA 

headquarters)

Quarterly Quarterly

40 CFR 123.45(b) Program reports by Director –

semi-annually

Control Authority Regional 

administrator 

(who then 

submits to 

EPA 

headquarters)

Semi-annually Semi-annually

40 CFR 123.45(c) Program reports by Director -

Annually

Control Authority Regional 

administrator 

(who then 

submits to 

EPA 

headquarters)

Annually Annually
29

3.3 Sewer Overflow Reporting Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule

The Team recommends that POTWs electronically report the following data in order to 

better estimate the volume of overflows, location, likely cause, and receiving waters. These data 

include the following categories: (1) type of overflow (CSO, SSO, Bypass); (2) name of the 

permittee; (3) NPDES permit ID; (4) enforcement order ID (if applicable); (5) date discovered; 

(6) time discovered; (7) duration (hours); (8) quantity of untreated and treated overflow (best 

professional judgment on the estimated number of gallons of overflow); (9) overflow location 

(street location, latitude and longitude); (10) best professional judgment on the likely cause of 

the overflow; (11) related weather data; (12) receiving waterbody (name and REACH ID); and 

(13) description of corrective actions taken by permittee. The location of the receiving waterbody

can be inputted by the user if known, or the user can use an EPA provided web service which can 

determine the likely receiving water body given a user defined latitude and longitude. The 

following table identifies the data elements specific for sewer overflow events.

Sewer Overflow Longitude (Sewer 

Overflow Event Report)

This data element is required for sewer overflows that do not have a 

permitted feature identifier, which is reported on the NPDES permit 

application or Notice of Intent for NPDES permit coverage. The measure 

of the angular distance on a meridian east or west of the prime meridian for 

the sewer overflow. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees 

Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are provided in 

accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, 

Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 

2006.

Sewer Overflow Latitude (Sewer 

Overflow Event Report)

This data element is required for sewer overflows that do not have a 

permitted feature identifier, which is reported on the NPDES permit 

application or Notice of Intent for NPDES permit coverage. The measure 

of the angular distance on a meridian north or south of the equator for the 

sewer overflow. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes 

Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are provided in accordance 

with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data 

Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006.

Type of Sewer Overflow (Sewer 

Overflow Event Report)

A code identifying the type of sewer overflow (including CSO, SSO, 

Bypass, Other Discharge from the Collection System or Treatment Works).

Sewer Overflow Cause

The likely cause of the overflow event (e.g., broken pipe, fats/oil/grease,

mechanical failure, pump station electrical failure, inadequate sewer 

system capacity, etc.).

Date of Sewer Overflow Discovery

(Sewer Overflow Event Report)

Date when the sewer overflow is discovered by EPA or the delegated 

NPDES program authority, the permitted facility, or when the sewer 

overflow is reported by the public to the permitted facility. The date data 

must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY 

is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

Duration of Sewer Overflow event 

(hours) (Sewer Overflow Event 

Report)

Duration of the sewer overflow event (in hours). If the discharge has not 

been corrected, the best professional judgment from the permitted facility 

of the time the sewer overflow is expected to continue.

Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume 

(Sewer Overflow Event Report)

Best professional judgment from the permitted facility on the estimated 

number of gallons of sewer overflow. 

Receiving Waterbody Name for 

Permitted Feature (Sewer Overflow

Event Report)

This data element is required for sewer overflow inspections without a 

permitted feature identifier. Best professional judgment from the permitted 

facility of the name of the waterbody that is or will likely receive the 

discharge from each sewer overflow.
30

Dry or Wet Weather Occurrence for 

Sewer Overflow

Best professional judgment from the permitted facility on whether the 

sewer overflow event occurred during dry or wet weather.

Corrective Actions Taken or 

Planned for Sewer Overflows 

(Sewer Overflow Event Report)

The unique code/description that describes the steps taken or planned to 

reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of future sewer overflows. 

Type of Potential Impact of Sewer 

Overflow Event (Sewer Overflow

Event Report)

This describes the type of potential human health or environmental 

impact(s) of the sewer overflow event (e.g., beach closure). Under 40 CFR 

122.41(l)(6), “the permittee shall report any noncompliance which may 

endanger health or the environment.” This data element would provide 

information regarding the nature of such potential endangerment.

Finally, the team identified that the following fields in ICIS are not either not required for 

each overflow event report or are made redundant due to the change in reporting. For example, 

since each overflow event is reported there is no need to have POTWs report the number of SSO 

events per year as this value can be calculated from the individual overflow event reports.

 SSO system component code

 SSO system component description

 Other steps to reduce, prevent, mitigate (text field)

 Description of steps taken

 Step code

 Step description

 SSO annual report year

 Number of SSO events per year

 Volume of SSO events per year (gal)

 SSO monthly event month

 SSO monthly event year

 Number of SSO events per month

 Volume of SSO events per month (gal)

3.4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major 

limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, 

analysis, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data 

management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the 

main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficiently clear guidance and support 

materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding other NPDES programs (e.g., 

pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently, EPA’s data systems are not fully

meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the 

activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the 

importance of current data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.

The Team behind this paper identified the following key programmatic and compliance 

questions and metrics. These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, 

programmatic needs (e.g., re-issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance 

measures), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic 
31

and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the sewer overflows 

that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance 

activities.

3.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal?

The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the sewer overflow 

reports identified for conversion from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting will fully

meet the needs of EPA and the states. In particular, EPA and states will be able to estimate the 

frequency, magnitude, and duration of sewer overflows, the environmental/public health impacts, 

and the culpability of the violator. EPA and states will be able to use this data to address all: (1) 

sewer overflows which cause or contribute significantly to water quality or public health 

problems as soon as physically and financially possible; (2) sewer overflows which occur in high 

public use or public access areas as soon as physically and financially possible; and (3) dry

weather sewer overflows as soon as physically and financially possible.

In particular, the sewer overflow data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, 

and the public to more readily answer the following questions.

 Identify the owner/operator of the sewer collection system by name of municipality, and 

Permit ID number.

 Identify the size of the collection Area (square miles) covered by combined sewer 

collection system, area (square miles) covered by separate storm sewer system, and 

name(s) of the receiving waterbody(ies).

 Identify satellite combined sewer collection system collection system(s) and the 

population served by each satellite collection system.

 For each overflow occurring during dry weather, provide: date and time of the overflow 

event; latitude and longitude or street address location of the overflow; duration of the 

overflow; volume of overflow; affected high public use or public access areas; date and 

time overflow was discovered; cause of the overflow; remedial work to address the 

overflow; date and time the overflow was orally reported to the NPDES authority; date 

and time a written report was submitted to the NPDES authority.

 Provide all complaints and service requests from the service population concerning sewer 

backups (e.g., basement backups and backups to public areas), and all work requests in 

response to sewer backup complaints and service requests. Identify whether the 

municipality undertook remedial work in response to the complaint.

 Identify all enforcement actions against the municipality concerning violations of 

environmental regulations or statutes; include all warning and non-compliance letters, 

notices of violation, court orders, administrative orders by federal, state and local 

agencies, and actions by citizen groups.

 Indicate the final disposition for each enforcement action identified in the previous 

question was based; include penalty assessments and remedial work ordered.

 Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify the number of 

combined sewer outfall points and regulators in the combined sewer collection system; 

identify regulators that are actively controlled (opened and closed) by the municipality in 

response to wet weather (peak flow) events.
32

 Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify combined sewer 

overflow points that discharge to a sensitive area (as defined by the 1994 CSO Control 

Policy).

 Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify SIUs located upstream 

from each combined sewer overflow regulator and CSO point.

 Municipalities operating a combined sewer system, provide for each wet weather (peak 

flow) event: date and time of the event; peak flow capacity of the treatment plant; amount 

of precipitation; duration of precipitation; inflow volume at the head of the treatment 

works (identify time interval); flow volume of overflows at each combined sewer 

regulator and CSO point (identify time interval); for combined sewer overflow regulators 

that are actively controlled, duration during which controls were used to close (partially 

close) the regulator.

 Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, provide the latitude and longitude or 

street address location of emergency overflow points.

 Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, provide flow volume and duration at 

each emergency overflow point for each wet weather (peak flow) event.

 Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, for each bypass event, provide: volume 

and duration of the bypass discharge, conditions at the time of the event (dry weather, 

peak flow, precipitation amount), date and time the overflow was orally reported to the 

NPDES authority; date and time a written report was submitted to the NPDES authority.

3.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the sewer 

overflow data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team recommends that 

these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports 

for sewer overflows that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program 

and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report

for individual permitted non-majors,14 these web-based reports will use the list of performance 

questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales 

(watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports would provide regulated 

entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. The public could run 

standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web-based annual reports 

would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such as ICIS, IDEA, 

OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network 

to support all the functionality. These web-based annual reports can also provide the public with 

an easy way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies. For example, Michigan, 

California, and King County, Washington have on-line reporting and mapping to display

overflow data.15,16,17

 

14 See http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/

15 See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/csosso/.

16 See http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml

17 See http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/CSO/RealTime/SeattleOverview.aspx
33

3.5 Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and 

Metrics

The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able 

to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule. 

Key Question Purpose of Key Questions

Identify the owner/operator of the sewer collection system by name of 

municipality, and Permit ID number.

Program maintenance.

Identify the size of the collection Area (square miles) covered by combined 

sewer collection system, area (square miles) covered by separate storm sewer 

system, and name(s) of the receiving waterbody(ies).

Program oversight.

Identify satellite combined sewer collection system collection system(s), and the 

population served by each satellite collection system, 

Program oversight.

For each overflow occurring during dry weather, provide: date and time of the 

overflow event; latitude and longitude or street address location of the overflow; 

duration of the overflow; volume of overflow; affected high public use or public 

access areas; date and time overflow was discovered; cause of the overflow; 

remedial work to address the overflow; date and time the overflow was orally 

reported to the NPDES authority; date and time a written report was submitted 

to the NPDES authority.

Maintenance of best 

management practices. 

Compliance monitoring.

Provide all complaints and service requests from the service population 

concerning sewer backups (e.g., basement backups and backups to public 

areas), and all work requests in response to sewer backup complaints and 

service requests. Identify whether the municipality undertook remedial work in 

response to the complaint.

Maintenance of best 

management practices. 

Compliance monitoring.

Identify all enforcement actions against the municipality concerning violations 

of environmental regulations or statutes; include all warning and noncompliance letters, notices of violation, court orders, administrative orders by 

federal, state and local agencies, and actions by citizen groups. 

Compliance monitoring.

Indicate the final disposition for each enforcement action identified in the 

previous question was based; include penalty assessments and remedial work 

ordered.

Compliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify the number 

of combined sewer outfall points and regulators in the combined sewer 

collection system; identify regulators that are actively controlled (opened and 

closed) by the municipality in response to wet weather (peak flow) events.

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify combined 

sewer overflow points that discharge to a sensitive area (as defined by the 1994 

CSO Control Policy).

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify SIUs located 

upstream from each combined sewer overflow regulator and CSO point. 

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.
34

Key Question Purpose of Key Questions

Municipalities operating a combined sewer system, for each wet weather (peak 

flow) event provide: date and time of the event; peak flow capacity of the 

treatment plant; amount of precipitation; duration of precipitation; inflow 

volume at the head of the treatment works (identify time interval); flow

volume of overflows at each combined sewer regulator and CSO point (identify

time interval); for combined sewer overflow regulators that are actively 

controlled, duration during which controls were used to close (partially close) 

the regulator.

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, provide the latitude and 

longitude or street address location of emergency overflow points.

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, provide flow volume and 

duration at each emergency overflow point for each wet weather (peak flow) 

event.

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, for each bypass event, 

provide: volume and duration of the bypass discharge, conditions at the time of 

the event (dry weather, peak flow, precipitation amount), date and time the 

overflow was orally reported to the NPDES authority; date and time a written 

report was submitted to the NPDES authority.

Maintenance of best 

management practices.

Compliance monitoring.
35

4.0 CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOS)

4.1 Overview

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that operations that confine 

livestock and poultry animals generate about 500 million tons of manure annually – three times 

the amount of EPA’s estimate of 150 million tons of human sanitary waste produced annually in 

the U.S. Pollutants commonly associated with manure include nutrients (mainly nitrogen and 

phosphorus), organic matter, solids, and pathogens. Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), states have consistently reported that agricultural activities – including animal 

feeding operations – are leading sources of pollutants such as nutrients, pathogens (bacteria), and 

organic enrichment (low dissolved oxygen) that are contributing to water quality impairment in 

U.S. surface waters. Adverse environmental and human health impacts associated with pollutants 

in animal manure include: eutrophication or nutrient over-enrichment of surface waters, fish 

kills, reductions in dissolved oxygen available for aquatic life, increase in suspended solids 

resulting in an increase in turbidity of surface waters and inhibition of the functioning of aquatic 

plants and animals, nitrate contamination of drinking water, and transmission of pathogens 

associated with food and waterborne diseases in humans.

EPA and the states receive inconsistent information about the CAFO sector because most 

CAFOs do not have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, do not 

have traditional effluent discharge points and controls and, therefore, do not submit discharge 

monitoring reports (DMRs). Permit coverage for this universe includes individual permits and 

general permits. Many states have their own permit programs for livestock operations, but 

because these operations do not meet EPA's definition of NPDES "major," the states are not 

required to submit much data to EPA. To date, approximately 40 percent of the estimated 19,200 

CAFOs nationally have NPDES permits. However, it is unclear how many CAFOs in the U.S. 

“discharge or propose to discharge” and therefore could ultimately need NPDES permits. For 

the 2008 CAFO rule, EPA estimated that as many as 75 percent of all CAFOs could experience 

discharges based on standard operational profiles for CAFOs in the major animal sectors.

Under the terms of the NPDES CAFO regulations at 40 CFR §122.23, an animal feeding 

operation is defined as a large CAFO based on the number of animals raised in confinement, for 

example, 700 mature dairy cows, 1,000 beef cattle, or 2,500 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or 

more). An animal feeding operation is defined as a medium CAFO based on both type and 

number of animals confined, for example 200 to 699 mature dairy cows or 300 to 999 beef cattle, 

750 to 2,499 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more) as well as certain other conditions at the 

facility, including pollutants discharged to jurisdictional waters via a man-made ditch or other 

man-made device or pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the United States which 

pass over/through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined animals. 

Predominant animal agriculture sectors include dairy, beef cattle, poultry, egg laying operations, 

and swine. Every EPA region has CAFOs. The states with the highest numbers of CAFOs 

include: Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, Texas, and California. Collectively, these 

states have more than a third of all CAFOs in the U.S.
36

4.2 Current Program Reporting

Under the terms of EPA’s CAFO NPDES regulations, as revised in 2008, only CAFOs 

that either discharge or propose to discharge must seek NPDES permit coverage.18 This aspect of 

the NPDES program requires NPDES permit authorities to obtain site-specific information in 

order to require CAFOs to seek permit coverage if CAFOs do not seek coverage independently. 

CAFOs do not have outfalls and effluent controls like other industrial point sources. Instead, 

CAFO permits require implementation of best management practices. A CAFO that determines 

that it does not discharge or propose to discharge can voluntarily certify this to the permitting 

authority and would not need to seek NPDES permit coverage. Only the permitting authority 

receives copies of the CAFO certifications.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) require permitted CAFOs to submit an annual 

report to the NPDES Director. The annual report must include: (1) the number and type of 

animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof; (2) estimated amount of total 

manure, litter and process wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months 

(tons/gallons); (3) estimated amount of total manure, litter and process wastewater transferred to 

other person by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons); (4) total number of acres for 

land application covered by the CAFO’s nutrient management plan; (5) total number of acres 

under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of manure, litter and process 

wastewater in the previous 12 months; (6) summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater 

discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including 

date, time, and approximate volume; (7) a statement indicating whether the current version of the 

CAFO's nutrient management plan was developed or approved by a certified nutrient 

management planner; (8) actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field; the actual 

nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater; calculations of 

maximum amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be land applied at least once per 

year; and the amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater applied to each field in the 

previous 12 months; results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the 

previous 12 months; and any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months.

4.3 CAFO Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule

The Team recommends converting the annual CAFO program report to an electronic 

report(40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)). The following tables provide a listing of the data elements specific 

to the CAFO annual program report.

 

18 In 2008, EPA revised the NPDES permit regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to 

address the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA. Among 

other things, the 2008 final rule addressed the court’s ruling by specifying that a CAFO that “discharges or proposes 

to discharge” must seek NPDES permit coverage. The rulemaking also clarifies that a CAFO “proposes to 

discharge” if an objective assessment determines that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, or maintained 

such that a discharge will occur (73 FR 70424).
37

Animal Types

The unique code/description that identifies the permittee’s 

applicable animal sector(s) in the previous 12 months. This 

includes (but not limited to) beef cattle, broilers, layers, swine 

weighing 55 pounds or more, swine weighing less than 55 

pounds, mature dairy cows, dairy heifers, veal calves, sheep 

and lambs, horses, ducks, and turkeys.

Total Number The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in the 

previous 12 months.

Total Number of Animals in Open Confinement The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in 

open confinement in the previous 12 months.

CAFO Waste Type

The type of CAFO waste described (i.e., manure, litter, process 

wastewater).

Amount of CAFO Waste The amount of CAFO waste described, in gallons, as a total for 

the previous 12 months. 

Status of the CAFO Waste The status of the CAFO waste described (i.e., generated, 

generated and transferred, or applied onsite).

Total Number of Acres for Land Application 

Covered by the Nutrient Management Plan

Total number of acres (to the nearest quarter acre) for land 

application covered by the nutrient management plan in the 

previous 12 months.

Total Number of Acres Used for Land 

Application

The total number of acres (to the nearest quarter acre) under 

control of the CAFO used for land application in past 12 

months.

Discharges During Year from Production Area The flag indicating if there is any discharge from the 

production area in the previous 12 months.

Discovery Dates of Discharges from Production 

Area

The date of each discharge from the permittee’s production 

area in the previous 12 months. The date data must be provided 

in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the century, YY is the 

year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

Duration of Discharge from Production Area

The duration (in hours) of each discharge from the permittee’s 

production area in the previous 12 months. If the discharge is 

continual, the best professional judgment from the permitted 

facility of the time the discharge from the permittee’s 

production area is expected to continue.

Approximate Volume of Discharges from 

Production Area

Best professional judgment from the permittee on the estimated 

number of gallons for each discharge from the permittee’s 

production area in the previous 12 months.

Whether NMP Approved or Developed by 

Certified Planner

A flag indicating whether the NMP was approved or developed 

by a certified nutrient management planner.

Actual Crop(s) Planted for Each Field Actual crop(s) planted for each field.

Actual Crop Yield(s) for Each Field Actual crop yield(s) for each field (amount of production that 

was grown on each field, e.g., 300 bushels per acre).
38

Concentration Units/ Quantity Units

The code/description representing the unit of measure 

applicable to quantity or concentration limits and 

measurements as entered by the permittee. The same units 

must be used across all sampling data for manure, litter, 

process wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the maximum 

calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

Nitrogen Content of the CAFO Waste Type 

Results of sampling and analysis of a particular CAFO waste 

type (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater). The same 

form of nitrogen must be used across all sampling data for 

manure, litter, process wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the 

maximum calculation methods specified in the Linear 

Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate 

Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

Phosphorus Content of the CAFO Waste Type 

Results of sampling and analysis of a particular CAFO waste 

type (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater). The same 

form of phosphorus must be used across all sampling data for 

manure, litter, process wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the 

maximum calculation methods specified in the Linear 

Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate 

Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

Method for Calculating Maximum Amounts of 

Manure, Litter, and Process Wastewater

Flag identifying for each field whether the CAFO used the 

Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative 

Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)]. 

Field Identification Number

A unique field number to which CAFO waste was or will be 

applied. This data element will be used whether the term “for 

each field” is used in the CAFO Annual Program Report.

Calculated Maximum Amount of That CAFO 

Waste to Be Land Applied to that Field

The maximum amount of manure, litter, or process wastewater

(in gallons) that can be applied to each field in the previous 12 

months in accordance with procedures in the Linear Approach 

[40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)(B)] or the Narrative Rate Approach 

[40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)(D)].

Actual Amount of That CAFO Waste Applied to 

that Field 

The actual amount of a particular CAFO waste (i.e., manure, 

litter, or process wastewater) applied to a particular filed in the 

previous 12 months. 

CAFO Waste Type Applied to That Field The type of CAFO waste (i.e., manure, litter, or process 

wastewater) applied to that particular field.

Pollutant Parameter Measured in the Soil Test, 

under the Narrative Rate Approach

The pollutant parameter (i.e., nitrogen or phosphorus) of the 

CAFO waste measured, in accordance with procedures in the 

Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)(D)].

Nitrogen Amount of Any Supplemental 

Fertilizer Applied

For CAFOs using the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(ii)] the nitrogen amount of supplemental fertilizer 

(in pounds or gallons) that was applied to each field in the 

previous 12 months.

Phosphorus Amount of Any Supplemental 

Fertilizer Applied

For CAFOs using the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 

122.42(e)(5)(ii)] the phosphorous amount of supplemental 

fertilizer (in pounds or gallons) that was applied to each field in 

the previous 12 months.
39

4.4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major 

limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, 

analysis, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data 

management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the 

main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not set rigorous data entry requirements for “nonmajors” (e.g., facilities regulated under the pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflow, and CAFO

programs). Consequently, EPA’s data systems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA and the 

state NPDES programs to address questions about the activities and performance of these

programs.

The Team behind this paper identified the following key programmatic and compliance 

questions and metrics. These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, 

programmatic needs (e.g., re-issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance 

measures), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic 

and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the CAFO sector that 

demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance 

activities.

4.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal?

In conjunction with all other required reporting from permittees and permit 

authorities,

19 the collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the annual CAFO 

report identified for conversion from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting will meet the 

needs of EPA and the states. For example, the CAFO data collected electronically will enable 

EPA, states, and the public to more readily answer the following questions:

 How many permitted CAFOs are there in the U.S.?

 How many permitted CAFOs are there of each animal type? (Cattle, chickens, etc.)

 How many animals of each animal type are being raised at permitted CAFOs?

 Where are the permitted CAFOs located?

 How many are located on impaired waterbodies?

 How many permitted CAFOs have/had discharges w/in last year?

 What type and how much manure has been generated by permitted CAFOs in the last 

year?

 How many permitted CAFOs transfer large amounts of manure off site?

 How many permitted CAFO operations land apply manure?

 How many acres were used for land application by permitted CAFOs in the last year?

 How many permitted CAFOs have fields with high levels of P?

 How many permitted CAFOs have fields with high levels of N?

 How many permitted CAFOs used commercial fertilizer to supplement manure 

during the previous year?

 

19 See other supporting analyses for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Analysis A through E).
40

 How many permitted CAFOs have nutrient management plans developed by a 

certified planner?

 How many permitted CAFOs may generate more manure than can be properly land 

applied to land they control?

 How many permitted CAFOs may generate more manure than is either transferred 

offsite or that can be properly land applied to land they control?

4.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the 

CAFO data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team recommends that 

these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports 

for the CAFO sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program 

and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report

for individual permitted non-majors,20 these web-based reports will use the list of performance 

questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales 

(watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports would provide regulated 

entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. The public could run 

standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web-based annual reports 

would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such as ICIS, IDEA, 

OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network 

to support all the functionality. 

4.5 Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and 

Metrics

The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able 

to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule. 

Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

How many permitted CAFOs are there 

in the U.S.?

Animal Type, Total Number of Each 

Type

Program 

Implementation

How many permitted CAFOs are there 

of each animal type? (Cattle, chickens, 

etc.) Animal Types

Program 

Implementation

How many animals of each animal type 

are being raised at permitted CAFOs? Total Number of each type

Program 

Implementation

Where are the permitted CAFOs 

located?

Facility location information Compliance 

monitoring, targeting

 

20 See http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/
41

Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

How many are located on impaired 

waterbodies?

Facility location information Targeting

How many permitted CAFOs have/had 

discharges w/in last year?

Dates, types and volume of discharges in 

past 12 months

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

What type and how much manure has 

been generated by permitted CAFOs in 

the last year?

The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) 

and the amounts generated in the past 12 

months.

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs used

commercial fertilizer to supplement 

manure during the previous year?

The amount (pounds/gallons) and type of 

supplemental fertilizer (anhydrous 

ammonia, urea) applied during the last 12 

months.

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs transfer 

large amounts of manure off site?

Type and amount of manure transferred 

in the past 12 months

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFO operations 

land apply manure?

Number of acres used for land application 

in last 12 months

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many acres were used for land 

application by permitted CAFOs in the 

last year?

Number of acres used for land application 

in last 12 months

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs have fields 

with high levels of P?

Results of any soil testing for nitrogen 

and phosphorus taken during the previous 

12 months (Sample Location, Date, N 

content/units, P content/units

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs have fields 

with high levels of N?

Results of any soil testing for nitrogen 

and phosphorus taken during the previous 

12 months (Sample Location, Date, N 

content/units, P content/units

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs have a 

nutrient management plan developed by 

a certified planner?

NMP developed by certified planner Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring
42

Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key 

Questions

How many permitted CAFOs appear to 

be calculating land application rates 

correctly, based on reasonable crop 

yields?

The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) 

and the amounts generated in the past 12 

months., actual crop(s) planted for each 

field, actual yield(s) for each field

(amount of production that was grown on 

the field, e.g., 300 bushels per acre.), 

results of sampling and analysis of 

manure, litter and wastewater, the 

maximum amount and type of manure, 

litter, wastewater that can be applied to 

each field, the volume of manure that was 

applied to each field receiving manure, 

during the last 12 months.

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs generate 

more manure than can be properly land 

applied to land they control?

The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) 

and the amounts generated in the past 12 

months., actual crop(s) planted for each 

field, actual yield(s) for each field

(amount of production that was grown on 

the field, e.g., 300 bushels per acre.), 

results of sampling and analysis of 

manure, litter and wastewater, the 

maximum amount and type of manure, 

litter, wastewater that can be applied to 

each field, the volume of manure that was 

applied to each field receiving manure, 

during the last 12 months.

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring

How many permitted CAFOs generate 

more manure than is either transferred 

offsite or that can be properly land 

applied to land they control?

The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) 

and the amounts generated in the past 12 

months., the type (e.g., manure, litter, 

wastewater) and the amounts transferred 

offsite to a separate party in the past 12 

months, the maximum amount and type 

of manure, litter, wastewater that can be 

applied to each field., the volume of 

manure that was applied to each field 

receiving manure, during the last 12 

months.

Program 

implementation, 

targeting compliance 

monitoring
43

5.0 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORMWATER SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4S)

5.1 Overview

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) are required to develop and implement 

a stormwater management program (SWMP) to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff 

and prohibit illicit discharges. The Phase I rule, issued in 1990, requires medium and large cities 

or certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for 

their stormwater discharges. The Phase II rule, issued in 1999, requires regulated small MS4s in 

urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the 

permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. 

Generally, Phase I MS4s are covered by individual permits and Phase II MS4s are covered by a 

general permit issued by the states, local jurisdictions, and certain Federal and state operating 

entities. 

Stormwater runoff, including discharges from municipal storm sewers, industrial 

facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality. Such discharges 

are responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. 

Several studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of 

pollutants, such as turbidity, pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, 

and debris. As stormwater flows over a construction or industrial site or urbanized areas, it can 

pick up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, 

chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving 

stream or river. 

These pollutants can harm the environment and public health. According to EPA’s 

National Water Quality Inventory: 2002 Report, prepared under Section 305(b) of the Clean 

Water Act, 40% of surveyed rivers & 45% of surveyed lakes are not clean enough to meet basic 

uses (e.g. fishable, swimmable and drinkable). The Report further showed the sediment 

contributes to the impairment of 31% of impaired rivers and streams (84,503 river miles) and 

21% of impaired lake areas (1.5 million acres) and is the second leading cause of impairment for 

rivers and streams and the third leading cause for lakes. 

EPA estimates that there are over 8,000 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer permits 

nationwide. There are approximately 280 Phase I MS4 permits which cover approximately 1,000 

permittees (the difference being that many MS4 permits include two or more co-permittees). 

According to the ICIS-NPDES database, there are 1,299 permits with an MS4 program 

component. Due to system limitations in PCS, permits with an MS4 component are unable to be 

identified and evaluated for compliance and enforcement rates. Additionally, these NPDES 

permits are mostly based on BMPs. The lack of water quality monitoring data makes 

enforcement and demonstrations of permit effectiveness difficult.
44

5.2 Current Program Reporting

EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.42(c) require operators of large or medium 

municipal separate storm sewer system or a municipal separate storm sewer that has been 

designated by the Director under §122.26(a)(1)(v) to submit an annual program report. Due to 

the nature of stormwater management program there is tremendous variability in these annual 

program reports. Additionally, these program reports are a mix of narrative and numeric 

information. The annual program report must include the following information:

 The status of implementing the components of the stormwater management program that 

are established as permit conditions;

 Proposed changes to the stormwater management programs that are established as permit 

condition; 

 Identification of any revisions to the assessment of controls and the fiscal analysis 

reported in the permit application;

 A summary of compliance data, including monitoring data, that is accumulated 

throughout the reporting year;

 Annual expenditures and budget for year following each annual report;

 A summary describing the number and nature of enforcement actions, inspections, and 

public education programs; and 

 Identification of water quality improvements or degradation.

EPA requires similar recordkeeping for small MS4s; however, EPA regulations do not require 

small MS4 to report data to their NPDES permitting authority. However, a NPDES permitting 

authority may require an operator of a MS4 to regularly report compliance data.

MS4 operators have some flexibility to select the best management practices (BMPs) 

and measurable goals for each minimum control measure that are most appropriate for their 

system and still meet their NPDES permit requirements. MS4 operators must design and 

implement a comprehensive program (using the minimum measures framework) to reduce 

pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Once submitted in the NPDES permit 

application, the BMPs and measurable goals that the MS4 operator selected become 

requirements of their stormwater management program. Measurable goals are BMP design 

objectives or goals that quantify the progress of program implementation and the performance of 

the MS4 BMPs. They are objective markers or milestones that EPA can use to track the progress 

and effectiveness of the MS4 BMPs in reducing pollutants to the MEP. 

There are a number of different ways to write measurable goals and they fall into the 

following general categories:

 Tracking implementation over time. Where a BMP is continually implemented over the 

permit term, a measurable goal can be developed to track how often, or where, this BMP 

is implemented.

 Measuring progress in implementing the BMP. Some BMPs are developed over time, and 

a measurable goal can be used to track this progress until BMP implementation is 

completed.
45

 Tracking total numbers of BMPs implemented. Measurable goals also can be used to 

track BMP implementation numerically, e.g., the number of wet detention basins in place 

or the number of people changing their behavior due to the receipt of educational 

materials.

 Tracking program/BMP effectiveness. Measurable goals can be developed to evaluate 

BMP effectiveness, for example, by evaluating a structural BMP's effectiveness at 

reducing pollutant loadings, or evaluating a public education campaign's effectiveness at 

reaching and informing the target audience to determine whether it reduces pollutants to 

the MEP. A measurable goal can also be a BMP design objective or a performance 

standard. 

 Tracking environmental improvement. The ultimate goal of the NPDES stormwater 

program is environmental improvement, which can be a measurable goal. Achievement 

of environmental improvement can be assessed and documented by ascertaining whether 

state water quality standards are being met for the receiving waterbody or by tracking 

trends or improvements in water quality (chemical, physical, and biological) and other 

indicators, such as the hydrologic or habitat condition of the waterbody or watershed.

EPA recommends that measurable goals include, where appropriate, the following three 

components: (1) the activity, or BMP, to be completed; (2) a schedule or date of completion; and 

(3) a quantifiable target to measure progress toward achieving the activity or BMP. Measurable 

goals that include these three components and are easy to quantify will allow EPA and MS4 

operators to assess progress at reducing pollutants to the MEP. 

5.3 MS4 Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule

Due to the nature and variability of the MS4 program reports, the Team recommends 

summary data from MS4 program report be converted to electronic reporting (40 CFR 

122.42(c)). The following tables provide a listing of the specific data elements that are 

recommended for electronic reporting for MS4 program reports.

MS4 Reliance on Other Government 

Entities

Names of all municipalities that are included in the permit coverage. 

Unique Number for Each 

Municipality Covered Under MS4 

Permit

Unique number for each municipality covered under MS4 permit. This will 

allow greater geographic resolution for the MS4 components being tracked 

and ensure consistency from year to year. The number would essentially be 

similar to an outfall number, for distinguishing compliance at various 

locations.

Listing of MS4 Permit Components 

This code/description will identify for each municipality all of the permitted 

components that are included in the MS4 permit. The groupings of these 

MS4 components will include public education and outreach on stormwater 

impacts; public involvement/participation; illicit discharge detection and 

elimination; construction site stormwater runoff; post-construction 

stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and 

pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.

Identified Measurable Goal for Each 

MS4 Permit Component

Identified measurable goal for each MS4 permit component for each 

municipality. 
46

Status and Assessment of 

Implementing MS4 Components in 

Permit

Status and assessment of each MS4 permit component for each 

municipality.

Number of Notice of Violations

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number 

notice of violations. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the 

MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement 

action.

Number of Administrative Fines

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of 

administrative fines. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the 

MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement 

action.

Number of Stop Work Orders

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of 

stop work orders. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the 

MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement 

action.

Number of Civil Penalties

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of 

civil penalties. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 

permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action.

Number of Criminal Actions

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of 

criminal actions. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the 

MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement 

action.

Number of Administrative Orders

For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of 

administrative orders. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the 

MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement 

action.

The Team notes that the MS4 annual reports may be good candidates for being 

managed as electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs) and posting on EPA, state, or local 

government websites. Making these documents available to the public will provide added 

transparency on the MS4 program.21

5.4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major 

limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, 

analysis, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data 

management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the 

main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficiently clear guidance and support 

materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding other NPDES programs (e.g., 

pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently, EPA’s data systems are not fully

meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the 

activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the 

importance of current data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.

The Team behind this paper identified the following key programmatic and compliance 

questions and metrics. These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, 

programmatic needs (e.g., re-issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance 

 

21 The Missouri DNR website is an example of such a PDF repository of static searchable documents. See 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/wpcpermits-issued.htm.
47

measures), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic 

and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the MS4 sector that 

demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance 

activities.

5.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal?

The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the MS4 data 

identified for conversion from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet the 

needs of EPA and the states. In particular, these data will help implement EPA’s Clean Water 

Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the 

Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (2007), which expects the regions and states to audit 

each Phase I MS4 by 2013. For Phase II MS4, the goal is to conduct an appropriate combination 

of audits and inspections to determine compliance by 2014. Since the size of the universe is 

large, priority should be to MS4s located in priority watersheds that contribute to CWA Section 

303(d) or 305(b) listings (impaired waterbodies), and MS4s located near high quality waters that 

the state has designated for higher levels of protection to prevent degradation.

For example, the MS4 data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, and the 

public to more readily answer the following questions:

 [Name or count the number] of MS4 permits in the State of "x" [insert various names 

of states]; and

 Number of MS4 outfalls for a given NPDES ID.

 Number of MS4 activities or BMPs completed in the reporting year

 Name and number of MS4 permits and outfalls near 303d listed waters and other state 

designated impaired or protected waters

 How many MS4s have (or have not) submitted their annual reports?

 Gallons of stormwater runoff abated as a result of MS4 control activities/BMPs

5.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the 

MS4 data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team recommends that 

these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports 

for the MS4 sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program 

and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report

for individual permitted non-majors,22 these web-based reports will use the list of performance 

questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales 

(watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports would provide regulated 

entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. The public could run 

standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web-based annual reports 

would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such as ICIS, IDEA, 

OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network 

 

22 See http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/
48

to support all the functionality. These web-based annual reports can also provide the public with 

an easy way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies.
49

6.0 PRETREATMENT PROGRAM

6.1 Overview

Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive wastewater from households 

(domestic waste), as well as a wide variety of commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as 

Industrial Users (IUs). The types of IUs range widely, from restaurants to manufacturers of 

organic chemicals and plastics. EPA has developed a comprehensive pretreatment program 

implemented through state agencies and POTWs to control pollutants from IUs that might pass 

through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge, thereby

posing a threat to human health or the environment. POTWs with approved pretreatment 

programs are required to develop, implement, and enforce program elements through provisions 

written into their NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. 

The pretreatment program focuses on controlling pollutants from IUs that: (1) have the 

potential to cause the POTW to violate its NPDES permit discharge limits; (2) may pose a safety

concern to the POTW; and (3) affect the POTW’s sludge disposal method. See 40 CFR 403.3(i). 

The pretreatment program also has several other equally important regulatory requirements and 

initiatives. First, the pretreatment program ensures implementation and compliance with the 

technology-based categorical standards. Many pretreatment enforcement actions concern 

violations of categorical standards and those standards and the associated enforcement actions 

are not strictly tied to interference and pass through. Second, the pretreatment program contains 

regulatory provisions for preventing sewer blockages and collection system spills due to FOG, 

which contributes to a vast majority of spills nationally. Finally, municipal pretreatment 

programs are the source of significant pollution prevention and innovation initiatives. Such 

efforts involve controlling dental mercury and pharmaceutical reverse distribution.

Through the pretreatment program regulations at 40 CFR 403 and requirements within 

the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122, EPA regulates over 1,600 approved pretreatment 

program, who in turn oversee approximately 20,000 Significant IUs (SIUs –those required to be 

issued a control mechanism), while EPA and approved state pretreatment programs directly

oversee 1,300 SIUs.23 This number of SIUs is approximately three times the number of industrial 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) major dischargers.

The pretreatment program is considered a component of the NPDES program but in a 

larger sense its regulatory framework is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program. As 

with the NPDES permit program, the authority to enforce the pretreatment program can be 

authorized and EPA has authorized pretreatment program authority to 36 states. The 

pretreatment program has additional complexity as states can further authorize pretreatment 

program authority to local governments. This complexity is reflected in the different types of the 

compliance monitoring reporting, the associated report preparers and reviewers, and reporting 

timing.

 

23 U.S. EPA, 2004. “EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program,” Office of Inspector General, 

Report No. 2004-P-00030, September 28th. [Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040928-2004-P00030.pdf]
50

6.2 Current Program Reporting

Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 provide a listing of the fifteen pretreatment program reports that 

are currently managed in hardcopy between industrial users, control authorities, and approval 

authorities that are candidates for electronic reporting. These reports are summarized in Table 6-

1. In general, these reports fall into the following categories:

 Industrial User Reports: Twelve program reports from industrial users to control 

authorities (local POTWs, states, or EPA Regions in cities without approved 

programs); and

 Control Authority Reports: Three program reports from control authorities to 

approval authorities (states or EPA Regions).

These pretreatment reports are entirely managed in hardcopy format. Additionally, each local 

government, state, and EPA Region has its own hardcopy format for pretreatment reporting and 

other formats, including Word. Some states have Excel spreadsheet formats that they distribute 

to the Pretreatment Programs for preparation of Annual Reports. This means that program data is 

not centrally located nor is it standardized. However, these non-standardized reports all derive 

from the same Federal regulations (40 CFR 403) and can be standardized with coordination 

between EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, states, and local governments. All entities must be 

willing to adhere to the template, and be willing to require, or at least strongly encourage 

adoption of whatever standardization methods and reports that are developed.

States or EPA Regions enter basic POTW data into the PCS or ICIS-NPDES (e.g., 

POTW name, address latitude and longitude, POTW NPDES ID, POTW effluent limits, name of 

receiving waterbody).24 POTW Pretreatment status for POTWs should default to the authorized 

pretreatment state or EPA unless it is known that an approved program has been submitted and 

approved. Pretreatment Program Audits and Compliance Inspection summary data, collected by

state or EPA, is entered into ICIS; similar summary data on POTW performance actions is 

submitted annually by the POTW [in accordance to NPDES permit conditions and also 

403.12(i)], but not necessarily entered into either database. EPA limited the required number of 

pretreatment data elements as a means to reduce the reporting burden on states. Consequently, 

PCS and ICIS-NPDES pretreatment data only provide very general information about each 

pretreatment program and do not contain programmatic or compliance information on individual 

significant industrial users. Failure to track and enforce compliance of IUs for which states and 

EPA are the control authorities was cited as a weakness by EPA’s Office of Inspector General.

Some control authorities try to enter data but it is very limited.

There are also inconsistencies in data entry between the state and Regional pretreatment 

programs. A recent Office of Water analysis of pretreatment data in PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

coupled with interviews of EPA Regional pretreatment data entry staff indicate considerable 

inconsistencies in data entry, including use of database codes, types of data entered, and whether 

the data is entered at all. This limits the ability to draw comparative statistics across different 

 

24 U.S. EPA, 1988. “Update of PCS Policy Statement/WENDB Data Elements,” Memorandum from J. William 

Jordan, Director, Enforcement Division, March 23rd.
51

pretreatment programs or accurately respond to questions regarding the pretreatment program at 

the national level.

Currently there is no known existing national or state system, aside from EPA system for 

online PDFs, to facilitate the online data entry, signature, and submission of program report data.

Some States also have Excel spreadsheet formats that they distribute to their Pretreatment 

Programs for preparation of annual reports. Under current procedures, paper-based program 

reports are filled out by Control Authorities and Approval Authorities. EPA and states must 

manage this consistently large volume of paper work and enter the federally required data into 

ICIS or into their own state internal tracking system, which is then batched to ICIS. See Figure 

6-2. However, due to system incompatibilities some states are unable to successfully upload to 

their data into ICIS. 

Data from current paper-based pretreatment program reports are difficult to share and 

analyze as these reports are not standardized or collected electronically. The lack of 

standardization and the inefficient data collection methods are barriers to showing who is 

regulated by the pretreatment program and how EPA and state regulators demonstrate the 

effectiveness of their compliance activities. This rulemaking will be useful in standardizing data 

collection and reporting.

Moreover, Regional and state program authorities must review and assess compliance 

against these non-standard, hardcopy reports and identify facilities for enforcement and 

compliance activities. The non-standard hardcopy formats limits the usefulness of these reports 

as data cannot be easily compared or shared across different regulatory programs. 

Standardization and electronic data submittals can help track submissions and automate some 

compliance checks, which might lead to a burden reduction. Finally, standardization and 

electronic data submittals will lead to better identification of facilities that have the potential to 

impact impaired waters.

Figure 6-2: Annual Pretreatment 

Reports to one EPA Region (2009)
52

Table 6-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart

REGULATION

NUMBER REPORT REPORTINGENTITY

RECEIVING

ENTITY FREQUENCY REPORT DATE SIMILAR TO NPDES

40 CFR 403.6 Categorical 

Determination Request CIU/POTW EPA ONCE

Within 60 days after the 

effective date of new 

categorical pretreatment 

standard for existing 

sources and prior to 

discharge for new 

sources.

NO

40 CFR 403.7

Removal Credit 

Authorization and 

Compliance Monitoring

Control 

Authority

Approval 

Authority ONCE

Schedule for removal 

credit application is set by 

POTW. After application 

approval the POTW must 

annually demonstrate 

compliance to Approval 

Authority.

NO

40 CFR 403.12 (b) Baseline Monitoring 

Report CIU

Control 

Authority ONCE

Within 180 days after the 

effective date of new 

Federal categorical 

pretreatment standard or 

existing users and 90 days 

prior to discharge for new 

industrial users.

Application 

Form

40 CFR 403.12 (d)

Initial report on 

Compliance with 

Categorical 

Pretreatment Standard

CIU

Control 

Authority ONCE

Within 90 days after the 

effective date of new 

categorical pretreatment 

standard for existing 

sources and immediately 

after discharge for new 

sources.

YES

40 CFR 403.12 (e)

Periodic Reports on 

Continued Compliance 

for CIUs

CIU

Control 

Authority

MINIMUM OF 

EVERY SIX 

MONTHS

(JUNE & 

DECEMBER)

Periodic reports on 

continued compliance.

Yes, Discharge 

Monitoring 

Reports (DMRs)
53

Table 6-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart

REGULATION

NUMBER REPORT REPORTINGENTITY

RECEIVING

ENTITY FREQUENCY REPORT DATE SIMILAR TO NPDES

40 CFR 403.12 (f)

Notice of Potential 

Problems, Including 

Slug Loading

IU Control 

Authority CASE BY CASE Immediate notification NO

40 CFR 403.12 (h)

Periodic Reports on 

Continued Compliance 

for Non-CIUs

SIU

Control 

Authority

MINIMUM OF 

ONCE EVERY 

SIX MONTHS

Periodic reports on 

continued compliance. Yes, DMRs

403.12(g)(2)

24 hour notification of 

violations, 30 day 

resampling

SIU

Control 

Authority Case by Case

Within 24 hours 

(notification) and 30 days 

of violation (Resampling)

YES

40 CFR 403.12 (i) Annual POTW Reports Control 

Authority

Approval 

Authority

MINIMUM OF 

ANNUALLY

(some states 

require semiannual 

or quarterly 

reports)

No later than one year 

after program approval 

and annually thereafter.

NO

40 CFR 403.12 (j) Notification of Changed 

Discharge IU Control Authority CASE BY CASE

Prompt notice to Control 

Authority of new 

pollutant discharges or 

substantial changes

NO

40 CFR 403.12 (k) Compliance Schedule 

for POTWs

Control 

Authority

Approval 

Authority ONCE Based upon the Compliance Schedule NO

40 CFR 403.12 (p)

Hazardous Waste 

Notification and BMP 

Certification

IU Control 

Authority CASE BY CASE

Initial reports due in 

1991. New dischargers 

must report 180 days after 

start of the IU discharge.

NO

40 CFR 122.42(b)

POTW Disclosure 

Requirements on IU 

Discharges for NPDES 

Permitting

POTW NPDES Program 

Director CASE BY CASE

Timely notice to Director 

of new pollutant 

discharges or substantial 

changes

YES
54

Table 6-1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart

REGULATION

NUMBER REPORT REPORTINGENTITY

RECEIVING

ENTITY FREQUENCY REPORT DATE SIMILAR TO NPDES

40 CFR 

122.44(j)(1)

SIUs, identify in terms 

of volumes and 

character of pollutants

(similar to 122.42(b) 

for non approved 

pretreatment programs)

POTW NPDES Program 

Director Case by Case

Timely notice to Director

of characterizing SIUs, in 

terms of volume and 

character of pollutants

YES

40 CFR 403.12 (q)

Annual Certification by 

Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial 

Users

CIU

Control 

Authority ANNUALLY Must accompany an alternative report NO

40 CFR 403.16 Upset CIUs Control 

Authority CASE BY CASE

Verbal report within 24 

hours of upset and written 

report with 5 days

Yes, 122.41(n)

40 CFR 403.17 Bypass IUs Control 

Authority CASE BY CASE

Verbal report within 24

hours of upset and written 

report with 5 days

Yes, 122.41(m)
55

The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will alleviate state programs from entering many pretreatment data elements into ICISNPDES as these data will be submitted by the POTW (control authority) or significant industrial user (for facilities in cities or states 

without approved programs). Section 6.3 identifies the program reports and data elements that are candidates for electronic reporting. 

The following definitions are useful in understanding the responsible report preparer and signatory and report reviewer as defined by

EPA regulations. 

 “Approval Authority” is defined in Section 403.3(c): “Director in an NPDES State with an approved State pretreatment 

program and the appropriate Regional Administrator in a non-NPDES State or NPDES State without an approved State 

pretreatment program.”

 “Control Authority” is defined in Section 403.3(f): (1) The POTW if the POTW's Pretreatment Program Submission 

has been approved in accordance with the requirements of §403.11; or (2) the Approval Authority if the Submission 

has not been approved.”

 “Director” is defined at Section 403.3(g) as “the chief administrative officer of a State or Interstate water pollution 

control agency with an NPDES permit program approved pursuant to section 402(b) of the Act and an approved State 

pretreatment program.”

There are other program reports that are not good candidates for electronic reporting. The regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 

provide the application and reporting requirements for the states to seek approval from EPA to run their State pretreatment program. 

States are required to implement the pretreatment program requirements set forth in 40 CFR 403.8(f) for the IUs in their jurisdictions.

The state must identify and characterize IUs; issue control mechanisms; conduct oversight monitoring (sampling and inspections); 

request, receive, and analyze required reports from its IUs; and enforce against pretreatment program and control mechanism 

violations. Regulations at 40 CFR 403.11 provide procedures and reporting requirements for approving, denying, or modifying 

requests for approval of POTW Pretreatment Programs and applications for removal credit authorization. The reporting requirements 

at Parts 403.10 and the reporting procedures in 403.11 can be extensive and contain a mix of non-standardized quantitative and 

narrative data so may not be good candidates for electronic submission. Examples of other reports that might be identified as not 

appropriate for electronic submission are: 403.9 (POTW pretreatment programs and/or authorization to revise pretreatment standards:

Submission for approval), 403.10 (Development and submission of NPDES State pretreatment program), 403.13 (Variances from 

categorical pretreatment standards for fundamentally different factors), 403.15 (Net/Gross calculations) or 403.18 (Modifications of 

POTW pretreatment programs).Likewise, there may be other reports required by enforcement actions (e.g., administrative orders. 

These reporting requirements are also one-time or infrequent events. Consequently, the Team recommends that these program reports 

remain as paper-based reports.
56

Finally, it is noteworthy that only one pretreatment data element PRET [Pretreatment Program Required Indicator] is included 

in EPA’s IDEA database and even that code is not made available through the ECHO or OTIS website. Without direct access to PCS 

or ICIS-NPDES there is no ability to gain access to pretreatment data submitted by the EPA Regions and states.

6.2.1 Industrial User Reports 

These reports are submitted by Industrial Users to the Control Authority (POTW, state, or EPA Region). Currently there is 

no known existing national or state system to facilitate the online data entry, signature, and submission of these program report data.

Under current procedures, paper-based program reports are filled out by IU/SIUs and provided to their Control Authority. 

 40 CFR 403.6 provides industrial users with the ability to request written certification on the categorical pretreatment 

standards that apply to their operations (“Categorical Determination Request”).

 40 CFR 403.12(b) addresses “Baseline Monitoring Reports”: “...Industrial users [that are subject to categorical 

pretreatment standards]... shall submit to the Control Authority a report which contains the information listed in 

paragraphs (b)(1) – (7) of this section.” The information identified in this section to be submitted is similar to a permit 

application and, if applicable, a schedule by which the industrial user can meet the standards if it does not meet the 

standards at the time of submittal.

 40 CFR 403.12(d) addresses “Report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard Deadline”: “any

Industrial User subject to Pretreatment Standards and Requirements shall submit to the Control Authority a report 

containing the information described in paragraphs (b) (4)-(6) of this section”.

 40 CFR 403.12(e) addresses “Periodic reports on continued compliance”:“ ...(1) any Industrial User ... shall 

submit to the Control Authority... a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent which 

are limited by such categorical Pretreatment Standards.” These reports are similar to DMRs in the NPDES permit 

program.

 40 CFR 403.12(f) addresses “Notice of potential problems, including slug loading”: “All categorical and noncategorical Industrial Users shall notify the POTW immediately of all discharges that could cause problems to the 

POTW...”
57

 40 CFR 403.12(g) addresses the requirement for SIUs to report within 24 hours of becoming aware of a violation and 

the requirement to re-sample and submit within 30 days.

 40 CFR 403.12(h) addresses “Reporting requirements for Industrial Users not subject to categorical Pretreatment 

Standards”: “...Significant Non-categorical Industrial Users must submit to the Control Authority at least once 

every six months (on dates specified by the Control Authority) a description of the nature, concentration, and flow of 

the pollutants required to be reported by the Control Authority...” These reports are similar to DMRs in the NPDES 

permit program.

 40 CFR 403.12(j) addresses “Notification of changed Discharge”: “...All Industrial Users shall promptly notify the 

Control Authority (and the POTW if the POTW is not the Control Authority) in advance of any substantial 

change in the volume or character of pollutants in their Discharge, including the listed or characteristic hazardous 

wastes for which the Industrial User has submitted initial notification under paragraph (p) of this section.”

 40 CFR 403.12(p) addresses “any [Industrial User] discharge into the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise 

disposed of, would be a hazardous waste”: “The Industrial User shall notify the POTW, the EPA Regional Waste 

Management Division Director, and State hazardous waste authorities in writing of any discharge into the POTW 

of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261.” This requirement 

also requires that the IU submit certification to the Control Authority that the IU has a program in place to reduce the 

volume and toxicity of the hazardous waste discharges to the degree that it has determined to be economically

practicable.

 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) addresses Characterizing SIUs, in terms of volume and character of pollutants. This 

regulation requires POTWs to “Identify, in terms of character and volume of pollutants, any Significant Industrial 

Users discharging into the POTW subject to Pretreatment Standards under section 307(b) of CWA and 40 CFR part 

403.” Further, this regulations requires POTWs to “Provide a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local 

limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1), following permit issuance or reissuance.”

 40 CFR 403.12(q) addresses “Annual certification by Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users”: “A facility

determined to be a Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User pursuant to Sec. 403.3(v)(2) must annually submit the 

following certification statement, signed in accordance with the signatory requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. 

This certification must accompany any alternative report required by the Control Authority...” Although “facility” is 
58

not separately defined, the term “Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User” is defined within the definition of 

Significant Industrial User in 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2).

 40 CFR 403.16(c)(3) addresses the “Upset” Regulation. “An Industrial User who wishes to establish the affirmative 

defense of Upset shall ... submit the following information to the POTW and Control Authority within 24 hours of 

becoming aware of the Upset (if this information is provided orally, a written submission must be provided within five 

days): (i) A description of the Indirect Discharge and cause of noncompliance; (ii) The period of noncompliance, 

including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; (iii) 

Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance.” These regulations 

are similar to the “Upset” regulations for the NPDES permit program.

 40 CFR 403.17(c) addresses the “Bypass” Regulation. “If an Industrial User knows in advance of the need for a 

bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the Control Authority, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass. 

An Industrial User shall submit oral notice of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable Pretreatment Standards 

to the Control Authority within 24 hours from the time the Industrial User becomes aware of the bypass. A written 

submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the Industrial User becomes aware of the bypass. The 

written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact 

dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps 

taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. The Control Authority may waive the 

written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.” These regulations are 

similar to the “Bypass” regulations for the NPDES permit program.

As noted earlier, failure to track and enforce compliance of SIUs for which states and EPA are the control authorities was cited 

as a weakness by EPA’s Office of Inspector General in its 2004 pretreatment program report. There are some states that do not track 

or enforce compliance of SIUs in cities without approved pretreatment programs. When tracked, IU data are infrequently entered into 

national databases and, when they are entered, are often incorrectly entered. For example, many states and EPA personnel believe that 

individual IU data cannot be entered into ICIS or PCS. Electronic receipt of basic IU information and IU monitoring efforts would 

facilitate tracking of compliance report receipt and IU compliance with control mechanism requirements, and EPA would be able to 

identify all SIUs, their applicable categorical pretreatment standards, and their related discharge data in cities without approved 

pretreatment programs. 

6.2.2 Control Authority Reports
59

These reports are submitted by POTWs with approved Pretreatment Program to the Approval Authority, which can either be 

a delegated state program or an EPA Region. Currently there is no known existing national or state system to facilitate the online data 

entry, signature, and submission of these program report data. Under current procedures, paper-based Program Reports are filled out 

by Control Authorities and provided to their Approval Authority.

 40 CFR 403.7 provides the reporting requirements for control authorities to request authorization from the Approval 

Authority to grant removal credits to industrial users. 

 40 CFR 403.12(i) addresses “Annual POTW Reports”: “POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs shall 

provide the Approval Authority with a report that briefly describes the POTW's program activities, including 

activities of all participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction is involved in the local program.” At a minimum 

this report must contain the following: 

(1) An updated list of the POTW's Industrial Users, including their names and addresses, or a list of deletions and 

additions keyed to a previously submitted list. The POTW shall provide a brief explanation of each deletion. 

This list shall identify which Industrial Users are subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards and specify

which Standards are applicable to each Industrial User. The list shall indicate which Industrial Users are subject 

to local standards that are more stringent than the categorical Pretreatment Standards. The POTW shall also list 

the Industrial Users that are subject only to local Requirements. The list must also identify Industrial Users 

subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards that are subject to reduced reporting requirements under paragraph 

(e)(3), and identify which Industrial Users are Non-Significant Categorical Industrial Users. 

(2) A summary of the status of Industrial User compliance over the reporting period; 

(3) A summary of compliance and enforcement activities (including inspections) conducted by the POTW during 

the reporting period; 

(4) A summary of changes to the POTW's pretreatment program that have not been previously reported to the 

Approval Authority; and

(5) Any other relevant information requested by the Approval Authority.

It is worth noting that in practice Control Authorities only report on Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and the Categorical 

Industrial Users (CIUs), not the entire list of Industrial Users (which includes restaurants and any other non-domestic source of

wastewater). The Office of Water notes that quantification of the SIUs and CIUs is needed to calculate burden hours for their

programmatic Information Collection Request (a prerequisite to run the national program). The listing of SIUs and CIUs (and not IUs) 

is also necessary to determine if a POTW Pretreatment Program is in SNC for failure to implement its pretreatment program and

should be on the QNCR (if the facilities have too high percentage of expired control mechanisms, too many facilities in long term 
60

SNC, etc., hinting at some issue with oversight deficiencies). Consequently, EPA may wish to reduce the reporting burden on POTWs 

to only report on SIUs and CIUs and not include all other IUs.

 40 CFR 403.12(k) addresses “Compliance Schedule for POTWs”: “The following conditions and reporting 

requirements shall apply to the compliance schedule for development of an approvable POTW Pretreatment Program 

required by Sec. 403.8. . . the POTW shall submit a progress report to the Approval Authority including, as a 

minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress to be met on such date and, if not, the date on 

which it expects to comply with this increment of progress, the reason for delay, and the steps taken by the POTW to 

return to the schedule established.”

 40 CFR 122.42(b) addresses POTW disclosure requirements on Industrial User discharges for NPDES 

permitting. This regulation states that “All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the [NPDES] Director of the 

following: (1) Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject 

to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly discharging those pollutants; and (2) Any substantial change in the 

volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW 

at the time of issuance of the [NPDES] permit. (3) For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include 

information on (i) the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (ii) any anticipated impact of the 

change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.”

 Follow Up reports required by Audits/PCIs or enforcement actions?

6.3 Pretreatment Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

The regulatory framework for the pretreatment program is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program. There are 

numerous reporting requirements that vary from one-time events to more frequent reports (e.g., biannual compliance monitoring 

reports by CIUs to their Control Authority). Adding more complexity is the fact that the recipient of these program reports depends on 

whether the POTW or state has been granted authorization to act as a Control Authority or Approval Authority. Consequently, the 

Team evaluated the ability and need to convert paper-based pretreatment program reports to electronic reports against the following 

factors: (1) the ability to standardize a pretreatment report; (2) the frequency of the pretreatment report (e.g., one-time or very

infrequent reporting may not warrant conversion to electronic reporting); (3) the need to collect and manage data from the 

pretreatment report on a national basis for measuring programmatic and compliance activities; and (4) whether summary data from 

various paper-based reports could be combined into a new electronic based reports. Reports that are not considered candidates for 

electronic reporting for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will remain as paper-based reporting requirements. Additionally, the 
61

pretreatment program reports that are not considered candidates for this rulemaking may be good candidates for being managed as 

electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs) and posting on EPA, state, or local government websites. Making these documents 

available to the public will provide added transparency on the pretreatment program. The Team solicits input on whether such 

pretreatment reports should be included in the rulemaking but managed as static electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs).25

Using the above three criteria the Team identified that the following reports are not likely good candidates for electronic 

reporting on a national basis. 

 40 CFR 403.6 Categorical determination request; 

 40 CFR 403.7 Removal credits;

 40 CFR 403.10 State pretreatment program applications;

 40 CFR 403.11 Approval procedures for POTW pretreatment programs and POTW granting of removal credits; 

 40 CFR 403.12(b) Baseline monitoring report;

 40 CFR 403.12(d) Initial report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard;

 40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;

 40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;

 40 CFR 403.12(k) Compliance schedule for POTW pretreatment program;

 40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;

 40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;

 40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual certification by Non-significant CIUs

 40 CFR 403.16 Upset notification;

 40 CFR 403.17 Bypass notification; and

 40 CFR 403.18 Modification of POTW pretreatment programs.

The team recommends adding summary data to the annual POTW report on slug loadings, upset notifications and bypass 

notifications.

However, the Team identified that summary data from these reports are good candidates for electronic reporting. In 

particular, summary data from the following reports can be electronically submitted by the Control Authority through their Annual 

 

25 The Missouri DNR website is an example of such a PDF repository of static searchable documents. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/wpcpermitsissued.htm.
62

POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12(i)). For example, Control Authorities can identify in their Annual POTW Report the number of Slug 

Loadings Reports (40 CFR 403.12(f)) reported by each Industrial User. 

 40 CFR 403.6 Categorical determination request; 

 40 CFR 403.7 Removal credits;

 40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;

 40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;

 40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;

 40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual certification by Non-significant CIUs;

 40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;

 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director (SIUs, need to evaluate local 

limits after permit reissuance

 40 CFR 403.16 Upset notification;

 40 CFR 403.17 Bypass notification

The Team also noted that the following Industrial User reports should be collected electronically for Industrial Users in cities 

without approved pretreatment programs. This will facilitate tracking and enforcing compliance of IUs for which states and EPA are 

the control authorities.

 40 CFR 403.12(e) Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs

 40 CFR 403.12(h) Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non-CIUs

The Team also noted that the following Control Authority report should be collected electronically: Annual POTW Report 

(40 CFR 403.12 (i)). As previously noted, the Team also recommends that this annual report include summary data from paper-based 

reports that are not candidates for electronic reporting, especially data on by pass and upset notifications and slug loadings and a 

quantification summary of the reports received by the POTW.

The following tables provide a listing of the data elements that are specific to the two Industrial User reports (40 CFR 

403.12(e) and (h)) and the Annual POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12(h)). Compliance monitoring data from Industrial Users will also be 

submitted using data elements that are also used for Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (e.g., initial monitoring date).
63

SNC Published in Newspaper Flag

An indication as to which Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and NonSignificant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIUs) in SNC were published 

in the newspapers.

SNC with Pretreatment Schedule

Flag

An indication as to which Significant Industrial Users (SIU) and NonSignificant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIU) were in SNC with 

pretreatment schedules.

Date of Most Recent Adoption of 

Technically Based Local Limits

The date on which the Control Authority has technically evaluated the need 

for local limits. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format 

where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the 

day.

Date of Most Recent Technical 

Evaluation & or Local Limits

The date on which the Control Authority adopted local limits for pollutants. 

The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

Local Limits Pollutants This is the list of the pollutants for which the Control Authority derived, 

which is calculated using data from the headworks of the POTW. 

POTW Discharge Contamination 

Indicator (Program Report)

The flag indicating if there have been any problems (including upset, 

bypass, interference, pass-through) with the receiving POTW’s effluent 

discharge within the previous 12 months. 

POTW Biosolids Contamination 

Indicator (Program Report)

The flag indicating if there have been any problems (including upset, 

bypass, interference, pass-through) with the receiving POTW’s biosolids 

within the previous 12 months.

Removal Credits Application Status The status of the POTW’s application for administering removal credits.

Date of Most Recent Removal 

Credits Approval

This is the date the POTW’s application for removal credits was approved

by the Approval Authority. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MMDD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and 

DD is the day.

Removal Credits Pollutants This field contains a list of pollutants for which the Approval Authority 

granted the POTW authorization to administer removal credits. 

Industrial User Name (Program 

Report)

The name of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck 

transportation) to this POTW.

Industrial User Address (Program 

Report)

The mailing address of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and NonSignificant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW.

Industrial User City (Program 

Report)

The name of the city, town, village, or other locality, when identifiable, 

within whose boundaries (the majority of) for each Significant Industrial 

User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is 

discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
64

Industrial User State (Program 

Report)

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or 

state equivalent for the U.S. for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and 

Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW.

Industrial User Zip Code (Program 

Report)

The combination of the 5-digit Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) code and the 

4-digit extension code (if available) that represents the geographic segment 

that is a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. Postal Service to a 

geographic location for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and NonSignificant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW.

Industrial User SIU Flag This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a 

Significant Industrial Users (SIU). 

Industrial User Control Mechanism 

Flag

This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User has a Control 

Mechanism. 

Industrial User Control Mechanism 

Expiration Date 

The date when the Control Mechanism for the Industrial User will expire. 

The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

Industrial User Subject to 

Categorical Standards and Type 

(Program Report)

This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a 

Categorical Industrial Users (CIU) and its type (including Standard CIU, 

Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU), and Middle Tier 

Categorical Industrial User).

Applicable Categorical Standards 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Categorical Industrial User (CIU) 

that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the 

applicable categorical pretreatment standards.

Industrial User Subject to Local 

Limits (Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU is subject to 

local limits.

Industrial User Subject to Local 

Limits More Stringent Than 

Categorical Standards (Program 

Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU is subject to 

local limits that are more stringent than the applicable categorical standards.

SNC with Pretreatment Standards 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in 

Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with discharge requirements (including 

effluent limit violations) in the previous 12 months.
65

SNC with Reporting Requirements 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in 

Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with reporting requirements (including 

baseline monitoring reports, notice of potential problems, periodic self 

monitoring reports, notice of change in Industrial User discharge, hazardous 

waste notification and BMP certification) in the previous 12 months.

SNC with Other Control Mechanism 

Requirements (Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in 

Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with any other control mechanism 

requirements in the previous 12 months.

Number of Quarters in SNC

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW the number of yearly quarters 

the IU is in SNC in the previous 12 months.

Number of Industrial User 

Inspections

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of 

inspections conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months. 

Number of Industrial User Sampling 

Events

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of 

sampling events conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 12 

months.

Number of Industrial User Violation 

Notices

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of 

formal notices of violation or equivalent actions issued by the Control 

Authority in the previous 12 months.

Administrative Orders Issued to IUs 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of 

administrative orders issued by the Control Authority in the previous 12 

months. 

Civil Suits Filed Against IUs 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of 

civil suits filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months. 

Criminal Suits Filed Against IUs 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of 

criminal suits filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.
66

Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty 

Amount Assessed

For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar amount of the penalty 

assessed against each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 months as specified 

in the final entered Consent Decree or Court Order. For Administrative 

Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount of the penalty assessed in the 

Consent/Final Order.

Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty 

Amount Collected

For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar amount of the penalty 

collected from each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant 

Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 months. For 

Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount collected of the 

penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order.

Industrial User POTW Discharge 

Contamination Indicator (Program 

Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the 

Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving 

POTW’s effluent discharge in the previous reporting period. EPA 

regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits 

when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems 

(including upset, bypass, interference, pass-through) at the receiving POTW. 

Industrial User Biosolids 

Contamination Indicator (Program 

Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the 

Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving 

POTW’s biosolids in the previous reporting period. EPA regulations require 

the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge 

from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including upset, bypass, 

interference, pass-through) at the receiving POTW. 

Industrial User Process Wastewater 

Flow Rate (Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW the process wastewater flow 

rate (in gallons per day).

Type of Significant Industrial User 

Process Wastewater Flow (Program 

Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of process 

wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).

Significant Industrial User NonProcess Wastewater Flow Rate 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW the non-process wastewater 

flow rate (in gallons per day).
67

Type of Significant Industrial User 

Non-Process Wastewater Flow 

(Program Report)

This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging 

(including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of non-process 

wastewater flow (continuous or intermittent).

Industrial User Removal Credits 

Flag

This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the 

POTW has granted the IU removal credits.

Industrial User Removal Credits

Pollutants

This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the list of 

pollutants for which POTW has granted the IU removal credits. 

Industrial User Reduced Reporting

Flag

This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) 

and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the 

Control Authority has granted reduced reporting requirements 

[403.12(e)(3)].

Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) 

Certification to Control Authority

This code/description will identify for each Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) whether it has given its annual compliance 

certification.

Control Authority Budget Resources Annual pretreatment implementation budget.
68

6.4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics

A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major 

limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, 

analysis, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data 

management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the 

main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficiently clear guidance and support 

materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding other NPDES programs (e.g., 

pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently, EPA’s data systems are not fully

meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the 

activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the 

importance of current data collection, management, analysis, and reporting.

The Team behind this paper identified the following key programmatic and compliance 

questions and metrics. These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, 

programmatic needs (e.g., re-issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance 

measures), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic 

and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual reports for the pretreatment 

sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and 

compliance activities.

6.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal?

The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the pretreatment 

reports identified for conversion from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting will fully

meet the needs of EPA and the states. For example, the pretreatment data collected electronically 

will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readily answer the following questions:

 Number and names of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs;

 Number and names of POTWs that are not required to have pretreatment programs;

 Number and names of industrial users (IUs) in cities without pretreatment programs 

inspected or sampled during a time period (not just as part of audits);

 Number of significant industrial users (SIUs) and categorical industrial users (CIUs) 

in approved pretreatment programs and number without permits or with expired 

permits;

 Number of SIUs and CIUs in cities without pretreatment programs and number 

without permits;

 Number and name of IUs in cities without pretreatment programs that are in 

compliance/not in compliance with their monitoring/reporting requirements;

 Number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that are not 

inspected or sampled annually by the CA;

 Number and names of IUs that have been issued enforcement actions including the 

type of enforcement (SNC publication, AO, APO), who issued it (EPA, state, 

POTW), and any dollar amounts;

 Number and names of POTWs that are late in submitting local limits reevaluations;
69

 Number and names of POTWs that are required to submit local limits reevaluations 

and the dates the submissions are due;

 Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of local limits development and 

approval;

 Number and names of SIUs that have had SNC violations in the last two consecutive 

years;

 Number of enforcement actions taken against SIUs;

 Number of SIUs in SNC that have been published in the local paper;

 Number of incidents of pass-through and/or interference at POTWs;

 Number and names of POTWs with control mechanism deficiencies;

 Number and names of POTWs with SIU sampling and inspection deficiencies;

 Number and names of POTWs with inadequate pretreatment resources;

 NPDES permit compliance for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs

(reportable or significant noncompliance);

 Sludge compliance for POTW with approved pretreatment programs;

 Number and names of POTWs that have exceeded their influent, effluent, or sludge 

goals;

 Numbers and names of POTWs that have not incorporated the required pretreatment 

streamlining revisions into their legal authority;

 Numbers and names of POTWs that have incorporated the optional pretreatment 

streamlining revisions into their legal authority;

 Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of pretreatment streamlining 

approval;

 Numbers and names of POTWs that are late in submitting annual reports;

 Numbers and names of POTWs whose annual reports have been reviewed/not been 

reviewed; and

 Identification POTW with approved pretreatment programs that are covered by a 

TMDL or other 303d listing.

6.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information?

Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the 

pretreatment data identified for conversion from paper-based reporting. The Team recommends 

that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web-based annual 

reports for the pretreatment sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the 

NPDES program and compliance activities. Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual 

Noncompliance Report for individual permitted non-majors,26 these web-based reports will use 

the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query

results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web-based annual reports 

would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an easy way to retrieve data. 

The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These webbased annual reports would present an easy to use front-end, with the underlying data bases (such 

as ICIS, IDEA, OTIS, ECHO and state NPDES systems) operating in the background via the 

Exchange Network to support all the functionality. 

 

26 See http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/
70

These web-based annual reports can also provide the public with an easy way to assess 

the performances of different regulatory agencies. For example, Region 9 provided the Team 

with a draft conceptual model on how to assess the performance of different Control Authorities. 

The data to support this conceptual model would be electronically captured and stored in ICISNPDES and IDEA. 

Figure 6-1: Pretreatment Program Performance Measures Conceptual Model

6.5 Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and 

Metrics

The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able 

to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES 

Electronic Reporting Rule. 
71

Table 6-4: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic

and Compliance Questions and Metrics 

Key Question Required Data Elements Purpose of Key Question

Number and names of industrial users (IUs) in 

cities without pretreatment programs inspected

and/or sampled during a time period (not just 

as part of audits)

IU name / identifier ( Not in ICIS?), POTW identifier;

inspection flag – NOIN- opposite;

Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs Not Inspected; SIUs 

Not Sampled

Checking inspection coverage against the Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy for approval authority;

Implications for CA compliance status

Number of SIUs and CIUs in approved 

pretreatment programs and number without 

permits

SIUs; SIUs Without Control Mechanism; CIUs; Number 

of NSCIUs; Number of Middle Tier CIUs;

GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic 

ICR; Determination of RNC/SNC

Number and names of POTWs that are late in 

submitting local limits reevaluations

NPDES ID; local limit reevaluation due date (not in 

ICIS?)

Control authority management; General interest; 

Congressional interest; program implementation

Number and names of POTWs that are 

required to submit local limits reevaluations 

and the dates the submissions are due

NPDES ID; local limit re-evaluation flag; local limit 

reevaluation due date

Control authority management; General interest; 

Congressional interest; program implementation

Numbers and names of POTWs in various 

stages of local limits development and 

approval

NPDES ID; Date of Most Recent Adoption of 

Technically Based Local Limits; Date of Most Recent 

Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits; local limit 

reevaluation flag (not in ICIS?); local limit reevaluation 

due date (not in ICIS?)

Control authority management; General interest; 

Congressional interest; program implementation

Number and names of SIUs that have had 

SNC violations in the last two consecutive 

years

SIUs; SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Standards; SIUs in 

SNC with Reporting Requirements; SIUs in SNC with 

Pretreatment Schedule

Determination of RNC/SNC; general enforcement 

interest

NPDES permit compliance for POTWs with 

approved pretreatment programs

NPDES ID; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator;

Pretreatment Program Approved Date; various violations 

indicators already in ICIS, depending on violation

Implications for POTW compliance status; general 

enforcement interest; Determination of RNC/SNC

Sludge compliance for POTW with approved 

pretreatment programs NPDES ID; Sludge Contamination Indicator Enforcement interest?

Number and names of POTWs that have 

exceeded their influent, effluent, or sludge 

goals

NPDES ID; various violations indicators already in ICIS, 

depending on violation

Implications for POTW compliance status; general 

enforcement interest
72

Numbers and names of POTWs that have not 

incorporated the required pretreatment 

streamlining revisions into their legal 

authority;

NPDES ID; Program Modification Date for Required 

Streamlining

General program interest; Implications for CA 

compliance status; program implementation

Numbers and names of POTWs in various 

stages of pretreatment streamlining approval

POTW name /identifier; pretreat streamlining approval 

flag (code?) Control Authority interest?

Numbers and names of POTWs that are late in 

submitting annual reports

NPDES ID; Annual Report Due Date (NOT IN ICIS); 

Annual Report Receipt Date (NOT IN ICIS)

General program interest; Implications for CA 

compliance status

Numbers and names of POTWs whose annual 

reports have been reviewed/not been reviewed

NPDES ID; Annual Report Receipt Date; Annual Report 

Review Date

General program interest; Implications for CA 

compliance status

Identification POTW with approved 

pretreatment programs that are covered by a 

TMDL or other 303d listing

POTW name/ identifier; TMDL flag General interest - prioritize for inspections.

Number and names of POTWs with approved 

pretreatment programs NPDES ID; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator;

Pretreatment Program Approved Date

General interest; Congressional interest; GPRA;

Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR

Number and names of POTWs that are not 

required to have pretreatment programs

POTW name /identifier; ; Pretreatment Program Required 

Indicator; Need new indicator code for facilities that have 

been determined NOT to need a pretreatment program, so 

we can distinguish them from POTWs that haven’t been 

evaluated yet for the need to develop a pretreatment 

program

Pretreatment Program Approved Date

General interest; Congressional interest; GPRA;

Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR

Number of SIUs and CIUs in cities without 

pretreatment programs and number without 

permits

Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs; SIUs Without 

Control Mechanism; CIUs; Number of NSCIUs; Number 

of Middle Tier CIUs;

GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic 

ICR; Determination of RNC/SNC

Number and name of IUs in cities without 

pretreatment programs that are in 

compliance/not in compliance with their 

monitoring/reporting requirements

Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs in SNC with 

Pretreatment Standards; SIUs in SNC with Reporting 

Requirements; Violation Notices Issued to SIUs

Determination of RNC/SNC

Number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with 

pretreatment programs that are not inspected or 

sampled annually by the CA

SIUs Not Inspected; SIUs Not Sampled Determination of RNC/SNC
73

Number of enforcement actions taken against 

SIUs

Violation Notices Issued to SIUs; Administrative Orders 

Issued to SIUs; Civil Suits Filed Against SIUs; Criminal 

Suits Filed Against SIUs; Industrial Users (IUs) from 

which Penalties have been collected

Implications for CA compliance status; general 

enforcement interest

Number of SIUs in SNC that have been 

published in the local paper SIUs in SNC Published in Newspaper Implications for CA compliance status; general enforcement interest

Number of incidents of pass-through and/or 

interference at POTWs Pass-Through/ Interference Indicator

Implications for CA compliance status; general 

enforcement interest; Determination of RNC/SNC;

OECA

Number and names of POTWs with control 

mechanism deficiencies Control Mechanism deficiencies Determination of RNC/SNC

Number and names of POTWs with SIU 

sampling and inspection deficiencies Inadequacy of sampling and inspections Determination of RNC/SNC

Number and names of POTWs with inadequate 

pretreatment resources Adequacy of pretreatment resources Implications for CA compliance status; general interest; program implementation

Numbers and names of POTWs that have 

incorporated the optional pretreatment 

streamlining revisions into their legal authority

NPDES ID; Program Modification Date for Optional 

Streamlining; Optional Streamlining Program

Modification Type

General program interest; program implementation
74

Appendix A

Analysis F (Program Reports) Team Members

Workgroup Member Organization

Biosolids/Pretreatment

Carey Johnston (Lead) OECA/Office of Compliance

Virginia Lathrop OECA/Office of Compliance

Peter Bahor OECA/Office of Compliance

Laura Paradise OECA/Office of Compliance

Ginny Phillips OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement

Jan Pickrel OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Robin Danesi OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Chrystal Beasley OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Rick Stevens OW/Office of Science and Technology

CAFOs

Michael Mundell OECA/Office of Compliance

Al Havinga OECA/Office of Compliance

Kathryn Greenwald OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement

Carol Galloway EPA/Region 7

Nina Bonnelycke OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Combined Sewer Systems/ Separate Sewer Systems (including satellite systems)

Andrew Cherry OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement

Bob Klepp OECA/Office of Civil Enforcement

Mohammed Billah OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Kevin Weiss OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Charles Glass OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems (MS4s)

Kelly Brantner OW/Office of Wastewater Management

Holly Galavotti OW/Office of Wastewater Management