Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0068-0036
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-22T04:00Z

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Water
(
4203)
EPA­
833­
B­
96­
003
December
1996
U.
S.
EPA
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Contents
Page
List
of
Acronyms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A­
1
Glossary
of
Terms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
G­
1
Chapter
1
 
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.1
History
and
Evolution
of
the
NPDES
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Chapter
2
 
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
2.1
Regulatory
Framework
of
the
NPDES
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
2.2
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2.3
NPDES
Program
Areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
2.3.1
NPDES
Program
Areas
Applicable
to
Municipal
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
14
2.3.2
NPDES
Program
Areas
Applicable
to
Industrial
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
18
Chapter
3
 
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
3.1
Types
of
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
3.2
Major
Components
of
a
Permit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3.3
Overview
of
the
Development/
Issuance
Process
for
NPDES
Individual
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3.4
Overview
of
the
Development/
Issuance
Process
for
NPDES
General
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
3.5
Roles
and
Responsibilities
of
the
Federal
and
State
Authorities
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
Chapter
4
 
The
Permit
Application
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
4.1
NPDES
Permit
Application
Forms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
4.1.1
Municipal
Application
Requirements
(
Form
A
and
Short
Form
A)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
4.1.2
Non­
Municipal
Permit
Application
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
4.1.3
Application
Requirements
for
NPDES
General
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
4.2
Application
Deadlines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
4.3
Review
of
the
Application
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
4.3.1
The
Complete
Application
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
4.3.2
Common
Omissions
and
Errors
in
Applications
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
4.3.3
The
Accurate
Application
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
i
Contents
4.4
Facility
Information
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
4.4.1
Background
Information
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
4.4.2
Facility
Site
Visits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
4.5
Confidential
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Chapter
5
 
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
5.1
Application
of
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limitations
for
Non­
Municipal
Dischargers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
5.1.1
Statutory
and
Regulatory
Foundation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
5.1.2
Development
of
National
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Performance
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
5.1.3
General
Considerations
Concerning
the
Use
of
Effluent
Limitation
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
5.1.4
Best
Professional
Judgment
Permit
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
5.2
Application
of
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limitations
for
Municipal
Dischargers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
5.2.1
Secondary
Treatment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
5.2.2
Equivalent­
to­
Secondary
Treatment
Definition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
Chapter
6
 
Water
Quality­
Based
Effluent
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
6.1
Overview
of
Water
Quality
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
6.1.1
Components
of
Water
Quality
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
6.1.2
Establishing
Water
Quality
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
6.1.3
Future
Directions
for
Water
Quality
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
93
6.2
Approaches
to
Implementing
Water
Quality
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
6.2.1
Chemical­
Specific
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
6.2.2
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
(
WET)
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
6.2.3
Biological
Criteria
or
Biological
Assessment
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
98
6.3
Determining
the
Need
for
WQBELs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
6.3.1
Defining
"
Reasonable
Potential"
to
Exceed
Applicable
Criteria
.
99
6.3.2
Determining
Reasonable
Potential
With
Effluent
Monitoring
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
101
6.3.3
Determining
Reasonable
Potential
Without
Effluent
Monitoring
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
6.4
Exposure
Assessment
and
Wasteload
Allocation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
104
6.4.1
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
104
6.4.2
Calculating
Wasteload
Allocations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
106
6.4.3
Selecting
a
Water
Quality
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
6.5
Permit
Limit
Derivation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
6.5.1
Expression
of
Permit
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
112
6.5.2
Limits
Derived
from
Steady­
State
Model
Outputs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
112
6.5.3
Limits
Derived
from
Dynamic
Model
Outputs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
114
6.5.4
Special
Considerations
Permits
Protecting
Human
Health
.
.
.
114
ii
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Contents
Chapter
7
 
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
7.1
Establishing
Monitoring
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
116
7.1.1
Monitoring
Location
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
117
7.1.2
Monitoring
Frequency
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
119
7.1.3
Sample
Collection
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
122
7.1.4
Analytical
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
125
7.1.5
Other
Considerations
in
Establishing
Monitoring
Requirement
.
127
7.1.6
Establishing
Monitoring
Conditions
for
Unique
Discharges
.
.
.
129
7.2
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
134
Chapter
8
 
Special
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
137
8.1
General
Types
of
Special
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
138
8.1.1
Special
Studies
and
Additional
Monitoring
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
138
8.1.2
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
141
8.1.3
Pollution
Prevention
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
146
8.1.4
Compliance
Schedules
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
148
8.2
Permit
Conditions
Addressing
Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
With
Industrial
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
149
8.3
Special
Conditions
for
Municipal
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
151
8.3.1
The
National
Pretreatment
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
151
8.3.2
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
156
8.3.3
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
(
CSOs)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
159
8.3.4
Sanitary
Sewer
Overflows
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
164
8.3.5
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
164
Chapter
9
 
Standard
Conditions
of
NPDES
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
167
9.1
Types
of
Standard
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
168
9.2
Other
Standard
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
170
Chapter
10
 
Variances
to
Permit
Requirements
and
Other
Regulatory
Considerations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
171
10.1
Variances
to
Technology­
Based
Permit
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
171
10.1.1
Economic
Variances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
172
10.1.2
Variances
Based
on
Localized
Environmental
Factors
.
.
.
.
.
.
173
10.1.3
Marine
Discharge
Variances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
174
10.1.4
Fundamentally
Different
Factors
Variances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
175
10.1.5
Thermal
Discharge
Variances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
175
10.1.6
Net
Credits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
176
10.2
Variances
to
Water
Quality­
Based
Permit
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
176
10.2.1
Site­
Specific
Water
Quality
Criteria
Modification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
177
10.2.2
Designated
Use
Reclassification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
177
10.2.3
Water
Quality
Standard
Variance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
177
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
iii
Contents
10.3
Additional
Programmatic
Considerations
and
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
178
10.3.1
Anti­
Backsliding
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
178
10.3.2
Considerations
for
Other
Federal
Laws
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
185
Chapter
11
 
Administrative
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
191
11.1
Documentation
For
Development
of
the
Draft
Permit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
192
11.1.1
Administrative
Record
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
193
11.1.2
Fact
Sheets
and
Statements
of
Basis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
194
11.2
Items
to
Address
Prior
to
Issuance
of
a
Final
Permit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
197
11.2.1
Public
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
198
11.2.2
Public
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
199
11.2.3
Public
Hearing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
201
11.2.4
State/
Tribal
Roles
in
Reviewing
Draft
Permit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
202
11.2.5
Schedule
for
Final
Permit
Issuance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
203
11.3
Administrative
Actions
After
Final
Permit
Issuance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
203
11.3.1
Permit
Appeals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
204
11.3.2
Permit
Modification,
Revocation,
Termination,
and
Transfer
.
.
206
11.3.3
Termination
of
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
208
11.3.4
Transfer
of
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
209
Chapter
12
 
Permit
Compliance
and
Enforcement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
211
12.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
211
12.2
Compliance
Monitoring
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
212
12.2.1
Compliance
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
212
12.2.2
Compliance
Inspections
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
213
12.3
Quarterly
Noncompliance
Reports
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
214
12.4
Enforcement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
216
12.5
Public
Participation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
218
12.6
Compliance
Assistance
and
Voluntary
Compliance
Policies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
218
Appendix
A
Index
to
NPDES
Regulations
Appendix
B
Effluent
Guidelines
and
Standards
Appendix
C
List
of
SIC
Codes
Appendix
D
How
to
Obtain
Additional
EPA
Documents
iv
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
List
of
Exhibits
Page
EXHIBIT
1­
1
Organization
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
EXHIBIT
2­
1
Federal
NPDES
Regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
122)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
EXHIBIT
2­
2
Sources
of
Discharge
to
Waters
of
the
United
States
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
EXHIBIT
2­
3
NPDES
Program
Areas
and
Applicable
Regulations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
EXHIBIT
3­
1
NPDES
Permit
Components
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
EXHIBIT
3­
2
Major
Steps
Involved
in
Developing
and
Issuing
an
Individual
NPDES
Permit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
EXHIBIT
4­
1
Applications
Forms
Required
for
NPDES
Discharges
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
EXHIBIT
4­
2
Permit
Application
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
EXHIBIT
5­
1
Statutory
Deadlines
for
BPT,
BAT,
and
BCT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
EXHIBIT
5­
2
Effluent
Guidelines
Flowchart
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
EXHIBIT
5­
3
ELGs
for
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
EXHIBIT
5­
4
OCPSF
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
EXHIBIT
5­
5
BPJ
Permitting
Tools
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
EXHIBIT
5­
6
Secondary
Treatment
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
EXHIBIT
5­
7
State­
Specific
ASRs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
EXHIBIT
6­
1
Components
of
an
Integrated
Approach
to
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
EXHIBIT
6­
2
Basic
Mass
Balance
Water
Quality
Equation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
102
EXHIBIT
6­
3
Components
of
a
TMDL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
EXHIBIT
7­
1
Examples
of
Specifying
Sampling
Locations
in
Permits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
120
EXHIBIT
7­
2
Compositing
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
126
EXHIBIT
7­
3
Estimated
Costs
for
Common
Analytical
Procedures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
128`
EXHIBIT
7­
4
Minimum
Requirements
for
Sewage
Sludge
Monitoring,
Based
on
Method
of
Sludge
Use
or
Disposal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
EXHIBIT
7­
5
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
135
EXHIBIT
8­
1
Categories
of
CSO
Permitting
Conditions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
162
EXHIBIT
8­
2
Nine
Minimum
CSO
Controls
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
163
EXHIBIT
8­
3
Elements
of
the
Long­
Term
CSO
Control
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
163
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
v
List
of
Exhibits
EXHIBIT
10­
1
Anti­
Backsliding
Rules
Relating
to
Water
Quality­
Based
Effluent
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
181
EXHIBIT
11­
1
NPDES
Permitting
Administrative
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
192
EXHIBIT
11­
2
Elements
of
the
Draft
NPDES
Permit
Administrative
Record
.
.
.
.
194
EXHIBIT
11­
3
Elements
of
the
Administrative
Records
for
a
Final
Permit
.
.
.
.
.
195
EXHIBIT
11­
4
Required
Contents
of
a
Fact
Sheet
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
196
EXHIBIT
11­
5
Actions
That
Must
Receive
Public
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
198
EXHIBIT
11­
6
Contents
of
the
Public
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
199
EXHIBIT
11­
7
Conditions
Requiring
Major
Modification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
207
EXHIBIT
11­
8
Conditions
Requiring
Minor
Modification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
208
vi
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Chapter
3
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
This
chapter
presents
an
overview
of
the
different
types
of
NPDES
permits,

permit
components,
the
permitting
development
and
issuance
process,
and
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
the
Federal
and
State
governments.
The
intent
of
this
chapter
is
to
give
the
permit
writer
an
introduction
to
the
elements
of
a
NPDES
permit
and
to
provide
a
brief
overview
of
the
process
of
writing
a
permit.
The
process
is
illustrated
by
the
use
of
flow
charts.
The
tasks
identified
within
the
flow
charts
are
described
in
detail
in
subsequent
chapters.

3.1
Types
of
Permits
A
permit
is
typically
a
license
for
a
facility
to
discharge
a
specified
amount
of
a
pollutant
into
a
receiving
water
under
certain
conditions;
however,
permits
may
also
authorize
facilities
to
process,
incinerate,
landfill,
or
beneficially
use
sewage
sludge.

The
two
basic
types
of
NPDES
permits
that
can
be
issued
are
individual
and
general
permits.

An
individual
permit
is
a
permit
specifically
tailored
for
an
individual
facility.

Upon
submitting
the
appropriate
application(
s),
the
permitting
authority
develops
a
permit
for
that
particular
facility
based
on
the
information
contained
in
the
permit
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
21
Chapter
3
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
application
(
e.
g.,
type
of
activity,
nature
of
discharge,
receiving
water
quality).
The
permit
is
then
issued
to
the
facility
for
a
specific
time
period
(
not
to
exceed
5
years)

with
a
requirement
to
reapply
prior
to
the
expiration
date.

A
general
permit
is
developed
and
issued
by
a
permitting
authority
to
cover
multiple
facilities
within
a
specific
category.
General
permits
may
offer
a
cost­
effective
option
for
agencies
because
of
the
large
number
of
facilities
that
can
be
covered
under
a
single
permit.
According
to
40
CFR
§
122.28,
general
permits
may
be
written
to
cover
categories
of
point
sources
having
common
elements,
such
as:

°
Storm
water
point
sources
°
Facilities
that
involve
the
same
or
substantially
similar
types
of
operations
°
Facilities
that
discharge
the
same
types
of
wastes
or
engage
in
the
same
types
of
sludge
use
or
disposal
°
Facilities
that
require
the
same
effluent
limitations
or
operating
conditions,
or
standards
for
sewage
sludge
use
or
disposal
°
Facilities
that
require
the
same
monitoring
where
tiered
conditions
may
be
used
for
minor
differences
within
class
(
e.
g.,
size
or
seasonal
activity)

°
Facilities
that
are
more
appropriately
regulated
by
a
general
permit.

General
permits,
however,
may
only
be
issued
to
dischargers
within
a
specific
geographical
area
such
as
the
following:

°
Designated
planning
area
°
Sewer
district
°
City,
county,
or
State
boundary
°
State
highway
system
°
Standard
metropolitan
statistical
area
°
Urbanized
area.

The
use
of
general
permits
allows
the
permitting
authority
to
allocate
resources
in
a
more
efficient
manner
and
to
provide
more
timely
permit
coverage.
For
example,

a
large
number
of
facilities
that
have
certain
elements
in
common
may
be
covered
under
a
general
permit
without
expending
the
time
and
money
necessary
to
issue
an
individual
permit
to
each
of
these
facilities.
In
addition,
the
use
of
a
general
permit
ensures
consistency
of
permit
conditions
for
similar
facilities.

22
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
Chapter
3
3.2
Major
Components
of
a
Permit
All
NPDES
permits,
at
a
minimum,
consist
of
five
general
sections:

°
Cover
Page
 
Typically
contains
the
name
and
location
of
the
permittee,
a
statement
authorizing
the
discharge,
and
a
listing
of
the
specific
locations
for
which
a
discharge
is
authorized.

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

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

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

°
Standard
Conditions
 
Pre­
established
conditions
that
apply
to
all
NPDES
permits
and
that
delineate
the
legal,
administrative,
and
procedural
requirements
of
the
NPDES
permit.

Although
these
sections
compose
all
permits,
the
contents
of
some
of
these
sections
will
vary
depending
on
whether
the
permit
is
to
be
issued
to
a
municipal
or
industrial
facility,
and
whether
the
permit
will
be
issued
to
an
individual
facility
or
to
multiple
dischargers
(
i.
e.,
a
general
permit).
Exhibit
3­
1
shows
the
components
of
a
permit
and
highlights
some
of
the
distinctions
between
the
contents
of
NPDES
permits
for
industrial
and
municipal
permits.

3.3
Overview
of
the
Development/
Issuance
Process
for
NPDES
Individual
Permits
While
the
limits
and
conditions
in
an
individual
NPDES
permit
are
unique
to
the
permittee,
the
process
used
to
develop
the
limits
and
conditions,
and
issue
the
permit,

generally
follows
a
common
set
of
steps.
Exhibit
3­
2
illustrates
the
major
steps
involved
in
developing
and
issuing
an
individual
NPDES
permit.
Exhibit
3­
2
also
serves
as
an
index
for
the
subsequent
chapters
of
this
manual
by
identifying
the
chapters
where
more
detailed
information
for
each
step
is
presented.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
23
Chapter
3
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
The
permitting
process
begins
when
an
application
is
submitted
by
the
operator
EXHIBIT
3­
1
NPDES
Permit
Components
Industry­
Specific
Components
Components
of
All
NPDES
Permits
Municipal­
Specific
Components
Cover
Page
Technology­
Based:
°
Effluent
Guidelines
°
Best
Professional
Judgment
(
BPJ).
Effluent
Limitations:

 
Technology­
Based
 
Water
Quality­
Based
Technology
Based:
°
Secondary
Treatment
°
Equivalent
to
Secondary
Treatment.

Monitoring
and
Reporting
Requirements
Other
Requirements:
°
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMP).
Special
Conditions:

 
Compliance
Schedules
 
Storm
Water
 
Special
Studies,
Evaluation,
and
Other
Requirements
Other
Requirements:
°
Pretreatment
Program
°
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
°
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge.

Standard
Conditions
of
a
facility.
After
receiving
the
application
and
making
a
decision
to
proceed
with
the
permit,
the
permit
writer
reviews
the
application
for
completeness
and
accuracy.

When
the
application
is
determined
to
be
complete,
the
permit
writer
begins
to
develop
the
draft
permit
and
the
justification
for
the
permit
conditions
(
referred
to
as
the
fact
sheet
or
statement
of
basis)
based,
in
part,
on
the
application
data.

The
first
major
step
in
the
permit
development
process
is
the
derivation
of
technology­
based
effluent
limits.
Following
this
step,
the
permit
writer
derives
effluent
limits
that
are
protective
of
State
water
quality
standards
(
i.
e.,
water
quality­
based
effluent
limits
(
WQBEL)).
The
permit
writer
then
compares
the
technology­
based
limits
with
the
WQBELs
and
applies
the
more
stringent
limits
in
the
NPDES
permit.
The
24
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
Chapter
3
EXHIBIT
3­
2
Major
Steps
Involved
in
Developing
and
Issuing
an
Individual
NPDES
Permit
[
flow
chart
w/
index
]

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
25
Chapter
3
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
decision­
making
process
for
deriving
limits
is
documented
in
the
permit
fact
sheet.
It
is
quite
possible
that
a
permit
may
have
limitations
that
are
technology­
based
for
some
parameters
and
water
quality­
based
for
others.
For
example,
a
permit
may
contain
an
effluent
limit
for
TSS
based
on
national
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
technology­
based),
a
limit
for
ammonia
based
on
prevention
of
aquatic
toxicity
(
water
quality­
based),
and
a
BOD
5
limit
based
for
part
of
the
year
on
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
technology­
based)
and
for
the
remainder
of
the
year
on
water
quality
considerations.

Following
the
development
of
effluent
limits,
the
permit
writer
develops
appropriate
monitoring
and
reporting
conditions,
facility­
specific
special
conditions,
and
includes
standard
conditions
that
are
the
same
for
all
permits.

The
next
step
is
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
participation
in
the
permit
process.
A
public
notice
is
issued
announcing
the
permit
and
interested
parties
may
submit
comments
regarding
the
draft
permit.
Based
on
the
comments,
the
permitting
authority
then
finalizes
the
permit,
with
careful
attention
to
documenting
the
process
and
decisions
for
the
administrative
record,
and
issues
the
final
permit
to
the
facility.

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

°
Are
there
a
large
number
of
facilities
to
be
covered?

°
Do
the
facilities
have
similar
production
processes
or
activities?

°
Do
the
facilities
generate
similar
pollutants?

°
Do
only
a
small
percentage
of
the
facilities
have
the
potential
for
water
quality
standards
violations?

26
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
Chapter
3
The
remaining
steps
of
the
permit
process
are
the
same
as
the
individual
permits.
A
draft
permit
and
fact
sheet
are
developed,
a
public
notice
is
issued
and
public
comments
are
addressed,
the
issues
are
documented
for
the
administrative
record,
and
the
final
permit
is
issued.
After
the
general
permit
has
been
issued,

facilities
that
wish
to
be
covered
under
the
general
permit
then
generally
submit
a
Notice
of
Intent
(
NOI)
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
permitting
authority
may
then
either
request
additional
information
describing
the
facility,
notify
the
facility
that
it
is
covered
by
the
general
permit,
or
require
the
facility
to
apply
for
an
individual
permit.

3.5
Roles
and
Responsibilities
of
the
Federal
and
State
Authorities
EPA
is
authorized
under
the
CWA
to
directly
implement
the
NPDES
Program.

EPA,
however,
may
authorize
States,
Territories,
or
Tribes
to
implement
all
or
parts
of
the
national
program.
States,
Territories,
or
Tribes
applying
for
authorization
may
seek
the
authority
to
implement
the
base
program
(
i.
e.,
issue
individual
NPDES
permits
for
industrial
and
municipal
sources),
and
may
seek
authorization
to
implement
other
parts
of
the
national
program
including,
Federal
facilities,
the
national
pretreatment
program,
general
permits,
and/
or
the
municipal
sewage
sludge
program.

If
the
State
has
only
partial
authority
(
e.
g.,
only
the
base
NPDES
permits
program),

EPA
will
implement
the
other
program
activities
(
e.
g.,
pretreatment
program,
Federal
facilities,
and
sewage
sludge
program).
For
example,
where
a
State
has
an
approved
NPDES
Program
but
has
not
received
EPA
approval
of
its
State
sludge
management
program,
the
EPA
Region
is
responsible
for
including
conditions
to
implement
the
Part
503
Standards
for
the
Use
or
Disposal
of
Sewage
Sludge
in
NPDES
permits
issued
to
treatment
works
in
that
State.
EPA
may
issue
a
separate
NPDES
permit
with
the
applicable
sewage
sludge
standards
and
requirements,
or
negotiate
with
the
State
on
joint
issuance
of
NPDES
permits
containing
the
Part
503
sewage
sludge
standards.

The
same
process
also
applies
where
a
State
has
not
received
approval
of
its
pretreatment
program
or
Federal
facilities.
One
exception
to
this
process
is
where
a
NPDES­
authorized
State,
Territory,
or
Tribe
is
not
approved
to
implement
the
general
permit
program.
In
these
cases,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
general
permit
in
that
State,

Territory,
or
Tribe.

In
general,
once
a
State,
Territory,
or
Tribe
is
authorized
to
issue
permits,
EPA
is
prohibited
from
conducting
these
activities.
However,
EPA
must
be
provided
with
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
27
Chapter
3
Overview
of
the
NPDES
Permitting
Process
an
opportunity
to
review
each
permit
issued
by
the
State,
Territory,
or
Tribe
and
may
formally
object
to
elements
that
conflict
with
Federal
requirements.
If
the
permitting
agency
does
not
address
the
objection
points,
EPA
will
issue
the
permit
directly.

Once
a
permit
is
issued
through
a
government
agency,
it
is
enforceable
by
the
approved
State,
Territorial,
and
Federal
agencies
(
including
EPA)
with
legal
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
the
permit,
and
by
private
citizens
(
in
Federal
court).

28
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
This
chapter
provides
a
discussion
of
the
regulatory
framework
of
the
NPDES
Program,
identifies
the
types
of
activities
regulated
under
the
NPDES
Program,
and
discusses
the
program
areas
that
address
the
various
types
of
regulated
activities.

2.1
Regulatory
Framework
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
1
discussed
how
Congress,
in
Section
402
of
the
CWA,
required
EPA
to
develop
and
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program.
While
Congress'
intent
was
established
in
the
CWA,
EPA
had
to
develop
specific
regulations
to
carry
out
the
congressional
mandate.
The
primary
regulations
developed
by
EPA
to
implement
and
administer
the
NPDES
Program
are
found
in
Title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
Part
122.

The
CFR
is
a
set
of
documents
listing
all
regulations
issued
by
every
United
States
government
agency.
The
CFR
is
published
by
the
National
Archives
and
Records
Service
of
the
General
Services
Administration.
The
CFR
is
updated
annually
based
on
the
regulations
published
daily
in
the
Federal
Register
(
FR).

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
7
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
The
FR
is
the
vehicle
by
which
EPA
and
other
branches
of
the
Federal
government
provide
notice
of,
propose,
and
promulgate
regulations.
Although
all
of
the
regulations
can
be
found
in
the
CFR,
the
background
and
implementation
information
related
to
these
regulations
can
be
found
in
the
preamble
to
the
regulations
contained
in
the
FR.
This
information
is
important
to
the
permit
writer
because
it
explains
the
regulatory
basis
upon
which
permitting
decisions
are
made.

An
outline
of
the
Federal
NPDES
regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
122)
is
provided
in
Exhibit
2­
1.
Other
parts
of
40
CFR
that
are
related
to
the
NPDES
Program
include:

°
40
CFR
Part
123
(
State
program
requirements)

°
40
CFR
Part
124
(
procedures
for
decision
making)

°
40
CFR
Part
125
(
technology­
based
standards)

°
40
CFR
Part
129
(
toxic
pollutant
standards)

°
40
CFR
Part
130
(
water
quality
management
plans)

°
40
CFR
Part
131
(
water
quality­
based
standards)

°
40
CFR
Part
133
(
sewage
secondary
treatment
regulations)

°
40
CFR
Part
135
(
citizen
suits)

°
40
CFR
Part
136
(
analytical
procedures)

°
40
CFR
Part
257
(
State
sludge
disposal
regulations)

°
40
CFR
Part
401
(
general
effluent
guidelines
provisions)

°
40
CFR
Part
403
(
general
pretreatment
regulations)

°
40
CFR
Parts
405­
471
(
effluent
limitations
guidelines)

°
40
CFR
Part
501
(
State
sludge
permitting
requirements)

°
40
CFR
Part
503
(
sewage
sludge
disposal
standards).

An
index
to
the
NPDES
regulations
is
provided
in
Appendix
A.
This
index
groups
the
regulatory
requirements
by
subject
area
to
provide
the
permit
writer
easier
access
to
specific
provisions.

2.2
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Under
the
NPDES
Program,
all
facilities
which
discharge
pollutants
from
any
point
source
into
waters
of
the
United
States
are
required
to
obtain
a
NPDES
permit.

Understanding
how
each
of
the
key
terms
("
pollutant,"
"
point
source,"
and
"
waters
of
8
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
2
EXHIBIT
2­
1
Federal
NPDES
Regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
122)

Subpart
A
­
Definitions
and
General
Program
Requirements
122.1
Purpose
and
Scope
of
NPDES
Program
122.2
Definitions
122.3
Exclusions
122.4
Prohibitions
122.5
Effect
of
a
Permit
122.6
Continuation
of
Expired
Permits
122.7
Confidentiality
of
Information
Subpart
B
­
Permit
Application
and
Special
NPDES
Program
Requirements
122.21
Applications
122.22
Signatures
Requirements
for
Applications
122.23
Animal
Feeding
Operations
122.24
Aquatic
Animal
Production
122.25
Aquaculture
122.26
Storm
Water
Discharges
122.27
Silviculture
122.28
General
Permits
122.29
New
Sources
and
New
Discharges
Subpart
C
­
Permit
Conditions
122.41
Standard
Conditions
122.42
Standard
Conditions
Applicable
to
Specified
Categories
122.43
Permit
Conditions
122.44
Permit
Limitations
(
a)
Technology
Basis
(
b)
Other
Basis
(
not
WQ)
(
c)
Reopeners
(
d)
Water
Quality
Basis
(
e)
Priority
Pollutants
(
f)
Notification
Levels
(
g)
24
Hour
Reporting
(
h)
Duration
of
Permits
(
i)
Monitoring
(
j)
Pretreatment
Program
(
k)
Best
Management
Practices
(
l)
Anti­
Backsliding
(
m)
Private
Treatment
Works
(
n)
Grants
(
o)
Sludge
(
p)
Coast
Guard
(
q)
Navigation
122.45
Calculating
Limitations
(
a)
Discharge
Points
(
b)
Production
Basis
(
c)
Metals
(
d)
Continuous
Discharges
(
e)
Non­
continuous
Discharges
(
f)
Mass
Based
Limits
(
g)
Intake
Water
Pollutants
(
h)
Internal
Waste
Streams
(
i)
Discharge
into
Wells
122.46
Duration
of
Permits
122.47
Schedules
of
Compliance
122.48
Reporting
122.49
Consideration
of
Other
Federal
Laws
122.50
Disposal
to
Other
Points
Subpart
D
­
Transfer,
Modification,
Revocation
and
Reissuance,
and
Termination
of
Permit
122.61
Transfer
of
Permits
122.62
Modification
or
Revocation
and
Reissuance
of
Permits
122.63
Minor
Modifications
of
Permits
122.64
Termination
of
Permits
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
9
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
the
United
States")
have
been
defined
and
interpreted
by
the
regulations
is
the
key
to
defining
the
scope
of
the
NPDES
Program.

Pollutant
The
term
"
pollutant"
is
defined
very
broadly
by
the
NPDES
regulations
and
includes
any
type
of
industrial,
municipal,
and
agricultural
waste
discharged
into
water
(
see
glossary).
For
regulatory
purposes,
pollutants
have
been
grouped
into
three
general
categories
under
the
NPDES
Program:
conventional,
toxic,
and
nonconventional.
By
definition,
there
are
five
conventional
pollutants:
5­
day
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD
5),
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
fecal
coliform,
pH,

and
oil
and
grease.
Toxic
or
"
priority"
pollutants
are
those
defined
in
Section
307(
a)(
1)

of
the
CWA
(
and
listed
in
40
CFR
§
401.15)
and
include
metals
and
manmade
organic
compounds.
Nonconventional
pollutants
are
those
which
do
not
fall
under
either
of
the
above
categories
and
include
such
parameters
as
ammonia,
nitrogen,
phosphorus,

chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD),
and
whole
effluent
toxicity
(
WET).

Point
Source
Pollutants
can
enter
waters
of
the
United
States
from
a
variety
of
pathways
including
agricultural,
domestic
and
industrial
sources
(
see
Exhibit
2­
2).
For
regulatory
purposes
these
sources
are
generally
categorized
as
either
"
point
sources"

or
"
non­
point
sources."
Typical
point
source
discharges
include
discharges
from
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
industrial
facilities,
and
discharges
associated
with
urban
runoff.
While
provisions
of
the
NPDES
Program
do
address
certain
specific
types
of
agricultural
activities
(
i.
e.,
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations),
the
majority
of
agricultural
facilities
are
defined
as
non­
point
sources
and
are
exempt
from
NPDES
regulation.

Pollutant
contributions
to
waters
of
the
United
States
may
come
from
both
"
direct"
and
"
indirect"
sources.
"
Direct"
sources
discharge
wastewater
directly
into
the
receiving
waterbody,
whereas
"
indirect"
sources
discharge
wastewater
to
a
POTW,

which
in
turn
discharges
into
the
receiving
waterbody.
Under
the
national
program,

NPDES
permits
are
issued
only
to
direct
point
source
discharges.
Industrial
and
commercial
indirect
dischargers
are
controlled
by
the
national
pretreatment
program
(
see
Section
8.3.1).

10
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
2
As
indicated
above,
the
primary
focus
of
the
NPDES
permitting
program
is
EXHIBIT
2­
2
Sources
of
Discharge
to
Waters
of
the
United
States
[
ducks,
deer,
and
sewage
picture
]

municipal
and
non­
municipal
(
industrial)
direct
dischargers.
Within
these
major
categories
of
dischargers,
however,
there
are
a
number
of
more
specific
types
of
discharges
that
are
regulated
under
the
NPDES
Program.
Exhibit
2­
3
provides
an
overview
of
the
scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
and
identifies
the
program
areas
that
control
various
categories
of
wastewater
discharges.

Municipalities
(
e.
g.,
POTWs
receive
primarily
domestic
sewage
from
residential
and
commercial
customers.
Larger
POTWs
will
also
typically
receive
and
treat
wastewater
from
industrial
facilities
(
indirect
dischargers)
connected
to
the
POTW
sewerage
system.
The
types
of
pollutants
treated
by
a
POTW,
therefore,
will
always
include
conventional
pollutants
(
BOD
5,
TSS,
pH,
oil
and
grease,
fecal
coliform),
and
will
include
nonconventional
and
toxic
pollutants
depending
on
the
unique
characteristics
of
the
commercial
and
industrial
sources
discharging
to
the
POTW.

The
treatment
typically
provided
by
POTWs
includes
physical
separation
and
settling
(
e.
g.,
screening,
grit
removal,
primary
settling),
biological
treatment
(
e.
g.,
trickling
filters,
activated
sludge),
and
disinfection
(
e.
g.,
chlorination,
UV,
ozone).
These
processes
produce
the
treated
effluent
and
a
biosolids
(
sludge)
residual.
An
additional
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
11
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
concern
to
some
older
POTWs
are
"
combined
sewer"
systems
(
i.
e.,
sewerage
systems
EXHIBIT
2­
3
NPDES
Program
Areas
and
Applicable
Regulations
Source
Activity
Program
Areas
Applicable
Regulations
Municipal
Municipal
Effluent
Discharge
NPDES
Point
Source
Control
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
125
40
CFR
133
Indirect
Industrial/
Commercial
Discharges
Pretreatment
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
403
40
CFR
405­
499
Municipal
Sludge
Use
and
Disposal
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
257
40
CFR
501
40
CFR
503
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
(
CSO)
Discharges
CSO
Control
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
125
Storm
Water
Discharges
(
Municipal)
Storm
Water
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
125
Industrial
Process
Wastewater
Discharges
NPDES
Point
Source
Control
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
125
40
CFR
405­
499
Non­
process
Wastewater
Discharges
NPDES
Point
Source
Control
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
125
Storm
Water
Discharges
(
Industrial)
Storm
Water
Program
40
CFR
122
40
CFR
125
that
are
designed
to
collect
both
sanitary
sewage
and
storm
water).
Exhibit
2­
3
illustrates
how
the
NPDES
Program
is
structured
to
control
all
of
the
various
types
of
pollutant
sources
and
wastestreams
that
contribute
to
municipal
point
sources.

Non­
municipal
sources,
which
include
industrial
and
commercial
facilities,
are
unique
with
respect
to
the
products
and
processes
present
at
the
facility.
Unlike
municipal
sources,
the
types
of
raw
materials,
production
processes,
treatment
technologies
utilized,
and
pollutants
discharged
at
industrial
facilities
vary
widely
and
are
dependent
on
the
type
of
industry
and
specific
facility
characteristics.
The
12
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
2
operations,
however,
are
generally
carried
out
within
a
more
clearly
defined
plant
area;

thus,
collection
system
considerations
are
generally
much
less
complex
than
for
POTWs.
In
addition,
residuals
(
sludge)
generated
by
industrial
facilities
are
not
currently
regulated
by
the
NPDES
Program.
Industrial
facilities
may
have
discharges
of
storm
water
that
may
be
contaminated
through
contact
with
manufacturing
activities,

or
raw
material
and
product
storage.
Industrial
facilities
may
also
have
non­
process
wastewater
discharges
such
as
non­
contact
cooling
water.
As
illustrated
in
Exhibit
2­
3,
the
NPDES
Program
addresses
each
of
these
potential
wastewater
sources
for
industrial
facilities.

Waters
of
the
United
States
The
term
"
waters
of
the
United
States,"
has
been
defined
by
EPA
to
include:

°
Navigable
waters
°
Tributaries
of
navigable
waters
°
Interstate
waters
°
Intrastate
lakes,
rivers,
and
streams:

 
Used
by
interstate
travelers
for
recreation
and
other
purposes;
or
 
Which
are
the
source
of
fish
or
shellfish
sold
in
interstate
commerce;
or
 
Which
are
utilized
for
industrial
purposes
by
industries
engaged
in
interstate
commerce.

The
intent
of
this
definition
is
to
cover
all
possible
waters
within
Federal
jurisdiction
under
the
framework
of
the
Constitution
(
i.
e.,
Federal
versus
State
authorities).
The
definition
has
been
interpreted
to
include
virtually
all
surface
waters
in
the
United
States,
including
wetlands
and
ephemeral
streams.
As
a
general
matter,
groundwater
is
not
considered
a
waters
of
the
United
States.
Therefore
discharges
to
groundwater
are
not
subject
to
NPDES
requirements.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
there
is
a
discharge
to
groundwater
that
results
in
a
"
hydrological
connection"
to
a
nearby
surface
water,
the
Director
may
require
the
discharger
to
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit.
[
Note:
Because
States
maintain
jurisdiction
over
groundwater
resources,
they
may
choose
to
require
NPDES
permits
for
discharges
to
groundwater.]

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
13
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
2.3
NPDES
Program
Areas
As
indicated
in
Exhibit
2­
3,
the
national
NPDES
Program
includes
provisions
that
address
several
different
types
of
discharges
from
municipal
and
industrial
sources.
This
section
provides
a
brief
description
of
how
the
NPDES
Program
addresses
each
of
these
program
areas.

2.3.1
NPDES
Program
Areas
Applicable
to
Municipal
Sources
The
NPDES
permitting
program
focuses
on
the
development
of
effluent
limits
and
conditions
for
the
discharge
of
treated
effluent.
The
NPDES
Program,
however,

also
incorporates
other
control
measures
to
address
certain
types
and
categories
of
discharges
that
may
be
present
at
some
municipal
facilities.
A
description
of
these
control
measures,
and
a
discussion
of
how
they
are
incorporated
into
the
permitting
process
is
provided
below.

National
Pretreatment
Program
The
national
pretreatment
program
regulates
the
discharges
of
wastewater
from
non­
domestic
(
i.
e.,
industrial
and
commercial)
facilities
that
discharge
to
POTWs
(
i.
e.,

"
indirect"
discharges).
The
pretreatment
program
requires
industrial
and
commercial
indirect
dischargers
to
"
pretreat"
their
wastes,
as
necessary,
prior
to
discharge
to
POTWs,
to
prevent
interference
or
upset
to
the
operation
of
the
POTW.
The
Federal
program
also
requires
many
indirect
dischargers
to
meet
technology­
based
requirements
similar
to
those
for
direct
dischargers.
The
pretreatment
program
is
generally
implemented
directly
by
the
POTW
receiving
indirect
discharges,
under
authority
granted
through
the
NPDES
permit.
The
Federal
regulations
specifying
which
POTWs
must
have
pretreatment
programs,
and
the
authorities
and
procedures
that
must
be
developed
by
the
POTW
prior
to
program
approval
are
found
in
40
CFR
Part
403.
The
implementation
of
a
local
pretreatment
program
is
typically
included
as
a
special
condition
in
NPDES
permits
issued
to
POTWs.
The
incorporation
of
pretreatment
special
conditions
is
discussed
in
Chapter
8.

Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
Program
Section
405
of
the
CWA
requires
that
all
NPDES
permits
issued
to
POTWs
and
other
Treatment
Works
Treating
Domestic
Sewage
(
TWTDS)
contain
conditions
14
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
2
implementing
40
CFR
Part
503
Standards
for
the
Use
and
Disposal
of
Sewage
Sludge.
Thus,
POTWs
and
other
TWTDS
must
submit
permit
applications
for
their
sludge
use
or
disposal
practices.
TWTDS
include
sewage
sludge
incinerators,

sewage
sludge
surface
disposal
sites,
and
facilities
that
do
not
discharge
to
waters
of
the
United
States
(
sludge­
only
facilities
such
as
sludge
composting
facilities
that
treat
sewage
sludge).

The
permitting
regulations
can
be
found
at
40
CFR
Part
122
for
the
Federal
program.
Regulations
for
State
program
approval
are
found
at
40
CFR
Parts
123
or
501
(
depending
on
whether
the
State
wishes
to
administer
the
sewage
sludge
program
under
its
NPDES
Program
or
under
another
program,
e.
g.,
a
solid
waste
program).
The
technical
regulations
governing
sewage
sludge
use
and
disposal
are
contained
in
40
CFR
Part
503.
Where
applicable,
sludge
management
requirements
are
included
as
a
special
condition
in
permits
issued
to
POTWs.
The
incorporation
of
special
conditions
that
address
sludge
requirements
is
discussed
in
Chapter
8.

Combined
Sewer
Overflows
Combined
sewer
systems
(
CSS)
are
wastewater
collection
systems
designed
to
carry
sanitary
wastewaters
(
commercial
and
industrial
wastewaters)
and
storm
water
through
a
single
conduit
to
a
POTW.
As
of
1995,
CSSs
serve
about
43
million
people
in
approximately
1,100
communities
nationwide.
During
dry
weather,
CSSs
collect
and
convey
domestic,
commercial,
and
industrial
wastewater
to
a
POTW;
however,

during
periods
of
rainfall
or
snowmelt,
these
systems
can
become
overloaded.
When
this
occurs,
the
CSS
overflows
at
designed
relief
points,
discharging
a
combination
of
untreated
sanitary
wastewaters
and
storm
water
directly
to
a
surface
water
body.

These
overflows,
called
combined
sewer
overflows
(
CSOs),
can
be
a
major
source
of
water
pollution
in
communities
served
by
CSSs.
CSOs
often
contain
high
levels
of
suspended
solids
(
SS),
pathogenic
microorganisms,
toxic
pollutants,
floatables,

nutrients,
and
other
pollutants,
causing
exceedances
of
water
quality
standards.

To
address
CSOs,
EPA
issued
the
National
CSO
Control
Strategy
on
August
10,
1989
(
54
FR
37370).
While
the
1989
Strategy
resulted
in
some
progress
in
controlling
CSOs,
significant
public
health
risks
and
water
quality
impacts
remained.

To
expedite
compliance
with
the
CWA
and
to
elaborate
on
the
1989
Strategy,
EPA,
in
collaboration
with
other
CSO
stakeholders
(
communities
with
CSSs,
State
water
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
15
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
quality
authorities,
and
environmental
groups),
developed
and
published
the
CSO
Control
Policy
on
April
19,
1994
(
59
FR
18688).
The
Policy
establishes
a
uniform,

nationally
consistent
approach
to
developing
and
issuing
NPDES
permits
that
address
CSOs.
With
respect
to
NPDES
permittees,
State
water
quality
standards
authorities,

and
NPDES
permitting
and
enforcement
authorities,
the
CSO
Policy
states
the
following:

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

°
Permittees
should
give
priority
to
environmentally
sensitive
areas.

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

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

°
NPDES
permitting
authorities
should
consider
the
financial
capability
of
permittees
when
reviewing
CSO
control
plans.

The
CSO
Policy
recommends
that
NPDES
permitting
authorities
utilize
a
phased
approach
in
addressing
CSOs.
Phase
I
permits
should
require
the
permittee
to
implement
the
NMC
within
two
years
of
notice
from
the
NPDES
permitting
authority
and
to
develop
a
LTCP.
Phase
II
permits
should
require
continued
implementation
of
the
NMC
and
implementation
of
a
LTCP.

Prior
to
issuing
a
permit
that
requires
conditions
that
address
CSOs,
permit
writers
should
consult
the
CSO
Control
Policy
and
associated
guidance
materials.

The
incorporation
of
permit
conditions
that
address
CSOs
is
provided
in
Chapter
8.

16
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
2
Storm
Water
Program
(
Municipal)

EPA
has
determined
that
storm
water
runoff
from
major
metropolitan
areas
is
a
significant
source
of
pollutants
discharged
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
While
rainfall
and
snow
are
natural
events,
the
nature
of
runoff
and
its
impact
on
receiving
waters
is
highly
dependent
on
human
activities
and
use
of
the
land.
Runoff
from
lands
modified
by
human
activities
(
i.
e.,
metropolitan
areas)
can
affect
surface
water
resources
in
two
ways:
(
1)
natural
flow
patterns
can
be
modified;
and
(
2)
pollution
concentrations
and
loadings
can
be
elevated.

To
address
these
discharges,
the
1987
amendments
to
the
CWA
added
a
provision
[
Section
402(
p)]
that
directed
EPA
to
establish
phased
NPDES
requirements
for
storm
water
discharges.
Section
402(
p)(
2)
of
the
Act
identifies
discharges
covered
under
Phase
I
of
the
Storm
Water
Program
and
includes
discharges
from
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
(
MS4s)
serving
a
population
of
100,000
or
more.

Section
402(
p)(
3)
identifies
the
standards
for
MS4
permits.
These
standards
mark
the
significant
difference
in
permits
that
address
storm
water
discharges
from
MS4s
versus
permits
that
address
other
more
traditional
sources
(
i.
e.,
POTWs
and
nonmunicipal
sources).
In
general,
Congress
provided
that
permits
for
discharges
from
MS4s:

°
May
be
issued
on
a
system­
or
jurisdiction
wide
basis;

°
Shall
effectively
prohibit
non­
storm
water
discharges
into
the
MS4;
and
°
Shall
require
controls
to
reduce
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
maximum
extent
practicable
(
MEP).

In
response,
EPA
published
regulations
addressing
storm
water
discharges
from
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
on
November
16,
1990
(
55
FR
47990).

The
regulations
define
a
MS4
as
any
conveyance
or
system
of
conveyances
that
is
owned
or
operated
by
a
State
or
local
government
entity
designed
for
collecting
and
conveying
storm
water.
Under
Phase
I
of
the
Storm
Water
Program,
only
those
MS4s
which
served
a
population
of
100,000
or
more
were
required
to
apply
for
a
NPDES
permit.
Unlike
permits
that
are
developed
and
issued
to
individual
POTWs
(
also
referred
to
as
"
municipals"),
permits
that
address
storm
water
discharges
from
MS4s
may
be
issued
on
a
jurisdiction­
wide
basis
to
the
operator
of
the
storm
water
collection
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
17
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
system
(
e.
g.,
a
county
or
city
public
works
department).
Chapter
8
discusses
considerations
for
developing
NPDES
permits
for
storm
water
discharges
from
MS4s.

2.3.2
NPDES
Program
Areas
Applicable
to
Industrial
Sources
In
addition
to
the
development
of
effluent
limits
and
conditions
for
discharges
of
process
and
non­
process
wastewater
from
direct
dischargers,
the
NPDES
Program
also
includes
provisions
for
control
of
storm
water
discharges
from
industrial
sources.

A
description
of
this
program
area
and
a
discussion
of
how
it
is
incorporated
into
the
permitting
process
is
provided
below.

Storm
Water
Program
(
Industrial)

All
storm
water
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activity
that
discharge
through
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
or
that
discharge
directly
into
the
waters
of
the
United
States
are
required
to
obtain
NPDES
permit
coverage,
including
those
which
discharge
through
MS4s
located
in
municipalities
with
a
population
of
less
than
100,000.
Discharges
of
storm
water
to
a
sanitary
sewer
system
or
to
a
POTW
are
excluded.
As
with
the
Municipal
Storm
Water
Program
discussed
in
Section
2.3.1
above,
EPA
published
the
initial
permit
application
requirements
for
certain
categories
of
storm
water
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activity
on
November
16,
1990
(
55
FR
48065).

The
regulations
define
storm
water
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activity
as
discharges
from
any
conveyance
used
for
collecting
and
conveying
storm
water
directly
related
to
manufacturing,
processing,
or
raw
materials
storage
areas
at
an
industrial
plant.
The
NPDES
permitting
regulations
at
40
CFR
§
122.26
were
promulgated
on
November
16,
1990
(
55
FR
48065)
to
identify
the
following
11
industrial
categories
required
to
apply
for
NPDES
permits
for
storm
water
discharges:

°
Facilities
subject
to
storm
water
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
ELG),
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS),
or
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
under
40
CFR
Subchapter
N
°
Certain
heavy
manufacturing
facilities
(
lumber,
paper,
chemicals,
petroleum
refining,
leather
tanning,
stone,
clay,
glass,
concrete,
ship
construction)
°
Active
and
inactive
mining
operations
and
oil
and
gas
operations
with
contaminated
storm
water
18
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
Chapter
2
°
Hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
facilities,
including
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C
facilities
°
Landfills,
open
dumps,
and
RCRA
Subtitle
D
facilities
°
Recycling
facilities,
including
metal
scrapyards,
battery
reclaimers,
salvage
yards,
and
automotive
junkyards
°
Steam
electric
power
generating
facilities,
including
coal
handling
sites
°
Transportation
facilities
that
have
vehicle
maintenance
shops,
equipment
cleaning
operations,
or
airport
de­
icing
operations
°
Major
POTW
sludge
handling
facilities,
including
onsite
application
of
sewage
sludge
°
Construction
activities
that
disturb
five
acres
or
more
°
Light
industrial
manufacturing
facilities.

Operators
of
industrial
facilities
that
are
federally,
state
or
municipally
owned
or
operated
that
meet
the
description
of
the
facilities
listed
in
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
1)­

(
xi)
must
also
submit
applications
(
note:
the
Transportation
Act
of
1991
provides
exceptions
for
certain
municipally
owned
or
operated
facilities).
EPA
published
final
rules
regarding
the
NPDES
Storm
Water
Regulations
on
both
April
1,
1992
(
57
FR
11394)
and
December
18,
1992
(
57
FR
60444).
The
rule
promulgated
on
April
2,

1992
was,
in
part,
to
codify
provisions
of
the
Transportation
Act
of
1991.
The
December
18,
1992
rule
was
in
response
to
the
mandate
of
the
Ninth
Circuit
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
in
NRDC
v.
EPA
(
June
4,
1992).
Each
of
these
final
rules
are
summarized
below:

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

°
Ninth
Circuit
Court
Decision
 
The
Ninth
Circuit
United
States
Court
of
Appeals'
opinion
in
NRDC
v.
EPA
(
June
4,
1992)
invalidated
and
remanded
for
further
proceedings
two
regulatory
exemptions
from
the
definition
of
"
storm
water
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activity":

1.
The
exemption
for
construction
sites
disturbing
less
than
five
acres
of
land
(
category
x),
and
2.
The
exemption
of
certain
"
light"
manufacturing
facilities
without
exposure
of
materials
and
activities
to
storm
water
(
category
xi).

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
19
Chapter
2
Regulatory
Framework
and
Scope
of
the
NPDES
Program
In
response
to
these
two
remands,
EPA
intends
to
conduct
further
rulemaking
proceedings
on
construction
activities
under
five
acres
and
light
industry
without
exposure.
As
ordered
by
the
Court,
EPA
will
not
require
permit
applications
for
construction
sites
disturbing
less
than
five
acres
of
land
and
category
xi
facilities
without
exposure
until
this
further
rulemaking
is
completed.

Generally,
storm
water
discharges
from
industrial
sources
are
regulated
by
Federal
or
State
issued
general
permits
(
see
Section
3.1
for
a
description
of
the
types
of
NPDES
permits).
However,
in
some
cases,
storm
water
conditions
may
be
incorporated
into
a
comprehensive
individual
NPDES
permit
for
a
facility,
or
a
storm
water­
specific
individual
NPDES
permit.
The
incorporation
of
permit
conditions
that
address
storm
water
discharges
from
industrial
facilities
is
provided
in
Chapter
8.
For
more
information
regarding
the
scope
of
the
NPDES
Storm
Water
Program,
refer
to
EPA's
storm
water
regulations
at
40
CFR
122.26
and
the
Overview
of
the
Storm
Water
Program.
2
2USEPA
(
1996).
Overview
of
the
Storm
Water
Program.
EPA
833­
R­
96­
008.
Office
of
Water.

20
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Chapter
1
Introduction
The
purpose
of
this
manual
is
to
provide
the
basic
regulatory
framework
and
technical
considerations
that
support
the
development
of
wastewater
discharge
permits
as
required
under
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
Program.
It
is
designed
for
new
permit
writers,
but
may
also
serve
as
a
reference
for
experienced
permit
writers.
In
addition,
the
manual
will
serve
as
a
useful
source
of
information
for
anyone
interested
in
learning
about
the
legal
process
and
technical
aspects
of
developing
NPDES
permits.
This
manual
updates
the
Training
Manual
for
NPDES
Permit
Writers.
1
It
is
recognized
that
each
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)

Regional
office
or
approved
State
will
have
NPDES
permitting
procedures
adapted
to
address
local
situations.
Therefore,
it
is
the
objective
of
this
manual
to
explain
the
minimum
national
NPDES
Program
elements
common
to
any
State
or
Regional
office
that
issues
NPDES
permits.
The
specific
objectives
and
functions
of
this
training
manual
are
to:

Provide
an
overview
of
the
scope
and
regulatory
framework
of
the
NPDES
Program
1USEPA
(
1993).
Training
Manual
for
NPDES
Permit
Writers.
EPA/
B­
93­
003.
Office
of
Wastewater
Management.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
1
Chapter
1
Introduction
Describe
the
components
of
a
permit
and
provide
an
overview
of
the
permitting
process
Describe
the
different
types
of
effluent
limits
and
the
legal
and
technical
considerations
involved
in
limit
development
Describe
other
permit
conditions
including:

 
special
conditions
 
standard
conditions
 
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
Describe
other
permitting
considerations
including:

 
variances
 
anti­
backsliding
 
other
applicable
statutes
(
e.
g.,
National
Environmental
Policy
Act,
Endangered
Species
Act,
National
Historic
Preservation
Act)

Explain
the
administrative
process
for
issuing,
modifying,
revoking
and
terminating
NPDES
permits.

This
manual
is
not
intended
to
be
a
stand­
alone
reference
document.
Instead,

it
is
intended
to
establish
the
framework
for
NPDES
permit
development
and
should
be
supplemented,
where
necessary,
by
additional
EPA
and
State
guidance
applicable
to
specific
types
of
dischargers
and
circumstances.
To
this
end,
the
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
identifies
and
references
other
guidance
documents
throughout
the
text
and
provides
information
on
how
these
documents
can
be
obtained.
Appendix
D
of
this
manual
provides
the
reader
with
detailed
information
on
how
to
obtain
comprehensive
lists
of
available
EPA
publications
and
how
these
documents
can
be
ordered.

1.1
History
and
Evolution
of
the
NPDES
Program
The
NPDES
Program
has
evolved
from
numerous
legislative
initiatives
dating
back
to
the
mid­
1960s.
In
1965,
Congress
enacted
legislation
requiring
States
to
develop
water
quality
standards
for
all
interstate
waters
by
1967.
However,
despite
increasing
public
concern
and
increased
Federal
spending,
only
about
50
percent
of
the
States
had
established
water
quality
standards
by
1971.
Enforcement
of
the
Federal
legislation
was
minimal
because
the
burden
of
proof
lay
with
the
regulatory
agencies
in
demonstrating
that
a
water
quality
problem
had
implications
for
human
health
or
violated
water
quality
standards.
Specifically,
the
agencies
had
to
demonstrate
a
direct
link
between
a
discharger
and
a
water
quality
problem
in
order
to
enforce
against
a
discharger.
The
lack
of
success
in
developing
adequate
water
2
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Introduction
Chapter
1
quality
standards
programs,
combined
with
ineffective
enforcement
of
Federal
water
pollution
legislation
prompted
the
Federal
government
to
advance
the
1970
Refuse
Act
Permit
Program
(
RAPP),
under
the
Rivers
and
Harbors
Act
of
1899,
as
a
vehicle
to
control
water
pollution.

RAPP
required
any
facility
that
discharged
wastes
into
public
waterways
to
obtain
a
Federal
permit
specifying
abatement
requirements
from
the
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
The
Administrator
of
EPA
endorsed
the
joint
program
with
the
Corps
of
Engineers,
and
on
December
23,
1970,
the
permit
program
was
mandated
through
Presidential
Order.
EPA
and
the
Corps
of
Engineers
rapidly
began
to
prepare
the
administrative
and
technical
basis
for
the
permit
program.
However,
in
December
1971,
RAPP
was
struck
down
by
a
decision
of
the
Federal
District
Court
in
Ohio
(
Kalur
v.
Resor),
which
held
that
the
issuance
of
a
permit
for
an
individual
facility
could
require
the
preparation
of
an
environmental
impact
statement
under
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(
NEPA)
of
1969.
The
concept
of
a
permit
program
survived,

however,
and,
in
November
1972,
Congress
passed
a
comprehensive
recodification
and
revision
of
Federal
water
pollution
control
law,
known
as
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
amendments
of
1972.
These
amendments
included
the
NPDES
permit
program
as
the
centerpiece
of
the
efforts
for
national
water
pollution
control.

The
enactment
of
the
1972
amendments
marked
a
distinct
change
in
the
philosophy
of
water
pollution
control
in
the
United
States.
The
amendments
maintained
the
water
quality­
based
controls,
but
added
an
equal
emphasis
on
a
technology­
based,
or
end­
of­
pipe,
control
strategy.
The
1972
Act
established
a
series
of
goals
or
policies
in
Section
101
that
illustrated
Congressional
intent.
Perhaps
the
most
notable
was
the
goal
that
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
navigable
waters
be
eliminated
by
1985.
This
goal
was
not
realized,
but
remains
a
principle
for
establishing
permit
requirements.
The
Act
had
an
interim
goal
to
achieve
"
water
quality
which
provides
for
the
protection
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
and
provides
for
recreation
in
and
on
the
water"
by
July
1,
1983.
This
is
more
commonly
known
as
the
"
fishable,
swimmable"
goal.
The
Act
also
contained
four
important
principles:

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

A
discharge
permit
is
required
to
use
public
resources
for
waste
disposal
and
limits
the
amount
of
pollutants
that
may
be
discharged.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
3
Chapter
1
Introduction
Wastewater
must
be
treated
with
the
best
treatment
technology
economically
achievable
 
regardless
of
the
condition
of
the
receiving
water.

Effluent
limits
must
be
based
on
treatment
technology
performance,
but
more
stringent
limits
may
be
imposed
if
the
technology­
based
limits
do
not
prevent
violations
of
water
quality
standards
in
the
receiving
water.

More
specifically,
Title
IV
of
the
Act
created
a
system
for
permitting
wastewater
discharges
(
Section
402),
known
as
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES),
with
the
objective
to
implement
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
Act.

An
outline
of
the
Titles
contained
in
the
Act
is
provided
as
Exhibit
1­
1.

EXHIBIT
1­
1
Organization
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
Title
I
 
Research
and
Related
Programs
Title
II
 
Grants
for
Construction
of
Treatment
Works
Title
III
 
Standards
and
Enforcement
°
Section
301
Effluent
Limitations
°
Section
302
Water
Quality­
Related
Effluent
Limitations
°
Section
303
Water
Quality
Standards
and
Implementation
Plans
°
Section
304
Information
and
Guidelines
[
Effluent]
°
Section
305
Water
Quality
Inventory
°
Section
307
Toxic
and
Pretreatment
Effluent
Standards.

Title
IV
 
Permits
and
Licenses
°
Section
402
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
°
Section
405
Disposal
of
Sewage
Sludge.

Title
V
 
General
Provisions
°
Section
502
Definitions
°
Section
510
State
Authority
°
Section
518
Indian
Tribes.

Title
VI
 
State
Water
Pollution
Control
Revolving
Funds
4
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Introduction
Chapter
1
The
first
round
of
NPDES
permits
issued
between
1972
and
1976
provided
for
control
of
a
number
of
traditionally
regulated
pollutants,
but
focused
on
5­
day
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD
5),
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
pH,
oil
and
grease,

and
some
metals,
by
requiring
the
use
of
the
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
currently
available
(
BPT).
The
Act
established
a
July
1,
1977,
deadline
for
all
facilities
to
be
in
compliance
with
BPT.
Additionally,
the
Act
established
the
compliance
deadline
for
installing
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT)
as
July
1,
1983.
Most
of
the
major
permits
issued
to
industrial
facilities
in
the
first
round
of
NPDES
permitting
contained
effluent
limitations
based
on
Best
Professional
Judgment
(
BPJ)
because
regulations
prescribing
nationally
uniform,
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
were
generally
unavailable.
The
second
round
of
permitting
in
the
late
1970s
and
early
1980s
began
to
emphasize
the
control
of
toxics,
but,
due
to
a
lack
of
information
on
treatability,
failed
to
complete
the
task.

EPA's
failure
to
develop
adequate
controls
for
toxic
discharges
under
the
1972
Act
prompted
the
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
(
NRDC)
to
sue
EPA.
[
NRDC
v.

Train,
8
E.
R.
C.
2120
(
D.
D.
C.
1976)].
The
suit
was
settled
through
a
court
supervised
"
consent
decree"
in
1976.
The
consent
decree
identified
(
1)
the
"
priority"
pollutants
to
be
controlled;
(
2)
the
"
primary
industries"
for
technology­
based
control;
and
(
3)
the
methods
for
regulating
toxic
discharges
through
the
authorities
of
the
1972
Act.
The
provisions
of
the
consent
decree
were
incorporated
into
the
framework
of
the
1977
amendments
of
the
Act,
and
resulted
in
the
Act's
refocus
toward
toxics
control.

The
1977
amendments
to
the
legislation,
known
formally
as
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
of
1977,
shifted
emphasis
from
controlling
conventional
pollutants
to
controlling
toxic
discharges.
This
era
of
toxic
pollutant
control
is
referred
to
as
the
second
round
of
permitting.
The
concept
of
BAT
controls
was
clarified
and
expanded
to
include
toxic
pollutants.
Hence,
the
compliance
deadline
for
BAT
was
extended
to
July
1,
1984.
The
conventional
pollutants
(
BOD
5,
TSS,
pH,
fecal
coliform,
and
oil
and
grease)
controlled
by
BPT
in
the
first
round
of
permitting
were
now
subject
to
a
new
level
of
control,
termed
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT).
The
compliance
deadline
for
meeting
BCT
was
also
July
1,
1984.

On
February
4,
1987,
Congress
amended
the
CWA
with
the
Water
Quality
Act
(
WQA)
of
1987.
The
amendments
outlined
a
strategy
to
accomplish
the
goal
of
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
5
Chapter
1
Introduction
meeting
water
quality
standards
set
by
the
States.
The
WQA
required
all
States
to
identify
waters
that
were
not
expected
to
meet
water
quality
standards
after
technology­
based
controls
on
point
sources
have
been
imposed.
The
State
must
then
prepare
an
individual
control
strategy
to
reduce
toxics
from
point
and
nonpoint
sources
in
order
to
meet
the
water
quality
standards.
Among
other
measures,
these
plans
were
expected
to
address
control
of
pollutants
beyond
technology­
based
levels.

The
WQA
once
again
extended
the
time
to
meet
BAT
and
BCT
effluent
limitations.
The
new
compliance
deadline
was
no
later
than
March
31,
1989.
The
WQA
also
established
new
schedules
for
industrial
and
municipal
storm
water
discharges
to
be
regulated
by
NPDES
permits.
Industrial
storm
water
discharges
must
meet
the
equivalent
of
BCT/
BAT
effluent
quality.
Discharges
from
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
(
MS4)
required
controls
to
reduce
the
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
(
MEP).
Additionally,
the
WQA
required
EPA
to
identify
toxics
in
sewage
sludge
and
establish
numerical
limits
to
control
these
pollutants.
The
WQA
also
established
a
statutory
anti­
backsliding
requirement
that
would
not
allow
an
existing
permit
to
be
modified
or
reissued
with
less
stringent
effluent
limitations,
standards,
or
conditions
than
those
already
imposed.
There
were
a
few
exceptions
for
technology­
based
limits,
but
in
no
case
could
the
limits
be
less
stringent
than
existing
effluent
guidelines
(
unless
a
variance
has
been
granted)
or
violate
water
quality
standards.

6
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
List
of
Acronyms
Acronym
Full
Phrase
ACR
Acute­
to­
Chronic
Ratio
ANPRM
Advanced
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
ASR
Alternative
State
Requirement
ASTM
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
BAT
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
BCT
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
BMP
Best
Management
Practice
BOD
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
BOD
5
5­
day
BOD
BPJ
Best
Professional
Judgment
BPT
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
Currently
Available
CBOD
Carbonaceous
BOD
CERCLA
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liabilities
Act
CERI
Center
for
Environmental
Research
Information
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
ChV
Chronic
Value
COD
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
CSO
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
CSS
Combined
Sewer
System
CV
Coefficient
of
Variation
CWA
Clean
Water
Act
DMR
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
DO
Dissolved
Oxygen
DWO
Dry
Weather
Overflow
EIS
Environmental
Impact
Statement
ELG
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
EMMI
Environmental
Monitoring
Methods
Index
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ESA
Endangered
Species
Act
FDF
Fundamentally
Different
Factor
FR
Federal
Register
FWS
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
GC
Gas
Chromatography
GC/
MS
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectroscopy
gpd
Gallons
per
Day
IC
Inhibition
Concentration
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
A­
1
List
of
Acronyms
I/
I
Infiltration/
Inflow
LA
Load
Allocation
LC
Lethal
Concentration
LC
50
Concentration
at
which
50%
of
test
organisms
die
in
a
specified
time
period
LD
50
Dose
at
which
50%
of
test
organisms
die
in
a
specific
time
period
LOEC
Lowest
Observed
Effect
Concentration
LTA
Long
Term
Average
LTCP
Long
Term
Control
Plan
MCL
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
MDL
Method
Detection
Limit
MEP
Maximum
Extent
Practicable
mg/
l
Milligram
per
Liter
mgd
Million
Gallons
per
Day
MPN
Most
Probable
Number
MS4
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
System
NEPA
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
NHPA
National
Historic
Preservation
Act
NMC
Nine
Minimum
Controls
NMFS
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
NOEC
No
Observable
Effect
Concentration
NOI
Notice
of
Intent
NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
NSPS
New
Source
Performance
Standards
NTIS
National
Technical
Information
Service
O&
M
Operations
and
Maintenance
PCS
Permit
Compliance
System
PL
Public
Law
POTW
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
PPETS
Pretreatment
Permits
and
Enforcement
Tracking
System
PPIC
Pollution
Prevention
Information
Clearinghouse
PQL
Practical
Quantification
Limit
PSD
Prevention
Significant
Deterioration
PSES
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
PSNS
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
QA
Quality
Assurance
QC
Quality
Control
QNCR
Quarterly
Noncompliance
Report
RAPP
Refuse
Act
Permit
Program
R&
D
Research
and
Development
RCRA
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
RNC
Reportable
Noncompliance
SIC
Standard
Industrial
Classification
SIP
State
Implementation
Plan
SNC
Significant
Noncompliance
SPCC
Spill
Prevention
Control
and
Countermeasure
Plan
A­
2
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
List
of
Acronyms
SS
Suspended
Solids
SSO
Sanitary
Sewer
Overflow
STORET
EPA
Storage
and
Retrieval
Database
TCLP
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
TIE
Toxicity
Identification
Evaluation
TKN
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
TOC
Total
Organic
Carbon
TMDL
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
TRC
Technical
Review
Criteria
TRE
Toxicity
Reduction
Evaluation
TRI
Toxic
Release
Inventory
TS
Total
Solids
TSCA
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
TSD
Technical
Support
Document
TSDF
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facility
TSS
Total
Suspended
Solids
TTO
Total
Toxic
Organics
TUa
acute
Toxic
Units
TUc
chronic
Toxic
Units
TVS
Total
Volatile
Solids
TWTDS
Treatment
Works
Treating
Domestic
Sewage
USC
United
States
Code
USGS
United
States
Geological
Survey
VOC
Volatile
Organic
Compound
WET
Whole
Effluent
Toxicity
WLA
Waste
Load
Allocation
WQA
Water
Quality
Act
of
1987
WQBEL
Water
Quality­
Based
Effluent
Limit(
s)
WQS
Water
Quality
Standard(
s)

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
A­
3
United
States
Office
of
Water
Environmental
Protection
Washington,
DC
Agency
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
December
1996
The
statements
in
this
document
are
intended
solely
as
guidance.
This
document
is
not
intended,
nor
can
it
be
relied
on,
to
create
any
rights
enforceable
by
any
party
in
litigation
with
the
United
States.
EPA
and
State
officials
may
decide
to
follow
the
guidance
provided
in
this
document,
or
to
act
at
variance
with
the
guidance,
based
on
an
analysis
of
specific
site
circumstances.
This
guidance
may
be
revised
without
public
notice
to
reflect
changes
in
EPA's
policy.

Office
of
Wastewater
Management
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Washington,
DC
20460
Acknowledgements
The
revisions
to
this
manual
were
made
possible
through
a
cooperative
team
effort
led
by
Dan
Weese,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management.
EPA
gratefully
acknowledges
the
contributions
of
the
team
members
involved
in
this
effort
(
Greg
Currey
and
Pat
Bradley)
for
the
countless
hours
spent
and
determination
in
bringing
this
effort
to
completion.
Their
commitment
and
dedication
to
this
product
was
key
to
the
NPDES
Program's
mission
of
providing
comprehensive
programmatic
guidance
and
technical
support
to
its
stakeholders.
The
revisions
to
this
manual
would
not
have
been
realized
without
their
assistance.
EPA
also
wishes
to
thank
Dave
Hair
and
Jim
Parker
of
Science
Applications
International
Corporation
for
their
contributions
and
invaluable
support
provided
under
contract
68­
C4­
0034.

The
primary
contact
regarding
questions
or
comments
to
this
manual
is:

Dan
Weese,
Environmental
Engineer
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
Permits
Division
(
4203)
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
401
M
Street,
SW
Washington,
DC
20460
Cover
Photo:
Lower
Yellowstone
Falls
Yellowstone
National
Park
Photograph
by
Dave
Hair
Foreword
Since
its
establishment
in
the
1972
amendments
to
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act,
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
Program
has
achieved
significant
reductions
in
pollutant
discharges,
which
in
turn
has
resulted
in
tremendous
improvement
to
the
quality
of
our
Nation's
water
resources.
As
we
move
into
the
21st
century,
the
objective
of
the
national
program
will
not
only
be
to
develop
solutions
which
address
remaining
impacts
to
surface
waters,
but
to
do
so
in
ways
that
continue
to
improve
the
effectiveness
of
the
NPDES
Program
and
allow
us
to
measure
environmental
progress
and
results.

As
EPA
and
States
take
steps
to
improve
the
NPDES
Program
and
how
it
is
implemented,
it
is
essential
that
all
parties
involved
understand
the
fundamental
basis
of
the
NPDES
Program.
The
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
is
principally
designed
to
help
permit
writers
prepare
legally
defensible
and
enforceable
NPDES
permits.
Its
purpose
is
to
serve
as
a
useful
resource
in
providing
the
technical
and
legal
considerations
which
support
the
development
of
NPDES
permits.
However,
the
manual
is
also
intended
to
serve
as
a
resource
for
others,
including
stakeholders
and
the
regulated
community,
interested
in
the
NPDES
permitting
process.
Only
after
reaching
some
common
level
of
understanding
of
the
NPDES
Program
and
the
issues
surrounding
the
permitting
process,
can
EPA,
State
permitting
authorities,
and
stakeholders
develop
optimal
solutions
to
improve
the
quality
of
our
surface
water
resources.
To
that
end,
I
would
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
highlight
some
of
the
changes
taking
place
within
the
NPDES
Program:

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

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

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

°
Burden
Reduction
 
EPA
is
also
pursuing
regulatory
reforms
to
eliminate
unnecessary
regulations
and
to
reduce
administrative
burdens.
For
example,
in
June
1995,
EPA
promulgated
a
rule
to
eliminate
obsolete
rules.
In
1996,
EPA
finalized
national
guidance
on
ways
to
reduce
reporting
and
monitoring
for
permittees
that
have
good
historical
compliance
records.

As
we
move
forward,
we
will
continue
to
explore
ways
to
promote
watershed,
streamlining,
and
reinvention
concepts
discussed
above
to
facilitate
the
continual
evolution
and
success
of
the
NPDES
Program.
As
such,
this
manual
is
expected
to
be
revised
periodically
to
reflect
improvements,
regulatory
changes,
and
policy
decisions.
Thank
you
for
using
this
permit
writers'
guide.
We
hope
that
it
serves
as
a
valuable
resource
and
tool
for
helping
to
achieve
healthy
water
resources
throughout
the
Nation.
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
This
chapter
describes
the
NPDES
permit
application
process
including
the
permit
writer's
role
in
reviewing
the
application
and
evaluating
background
information
about
the
applicant.
Through
this
process,
the
permit
writer
gains
an
understanding
of
the
circumstances
of
the
discharge
and
the
characteristics
of
the
proposed
effluent
that
will
allow
proper
development
of
permit
limits
and
conditions.

4.1
NPDES
Permit
Application
Forms
When
it
is
determined
that
a
facility
needs
an
individual
NPDES
permit,
the
facility
must
submit
an
application
for
a
permit.
Application
forms
and
requirements
are
specific
to
the
type
of
facility
and
discharge.
NPDES
permit
application
regulations
are
contained
in
40
CFR
Part
122,
Subpart
B.
Most
application
requirements
are
contained
in
forms
developed
by
EPA.
Exhibit
4­
1
provides
an
overview
of
the
types
of
dischargers
required
to
submit
NPDES
application
forms,
identifies
the
form(
s)
that
they
must
submit,
and
references
the
corresponding
NPDES
regulation
citation.
It
should
be
noted
that
authorized
States
are
not
required
to
use
the
EPA
application
forms.
However,
any
alternative
form
used
by
an
authorized
State
must
contain
the
information
required
in
40
CFR
Part
122,
Subpart
B.
An
application
form
must
also
be
submitted
for
permit
renewals.
Permits
may
no
longer
be
renewed
by
submitting
a
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
29
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
EXHIBIT
4­
1
Applications
Forms
Required
for
NPDES
Discharges
Type
of
Facility
Status
Forms
Regulatory
Citation
(
40
CFR
Part
122)

All
NPDES
Applicants
(
except
MS4s)
New
and
Existing
Form
1
122.21(
f)

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

 
Minor
POTWs
New
and
Existing
Short
A
122.21(
j)
(
reserved)

Industrial
Facilities
 
Manufacturing
Facilities
 
Commercial
Facilities
 
Mining
Activities
 
Silvicultural
Activities
 
Water
Treatment
Facilities
New
2D
122.21(
f)
and
(
k)

Existing
2C
122.21(
f)
and
(
g)

Non­
Process
Wastewater
2E
122.21(
f)
and
(
h)

Concentrated
Animal
Production
Facilities
 
Animal
Feedlots
 
Hatcheries
New
and
Existing
2B
122.21(
f)
and
122.21(
i)

Storm
water
discharges
associated
with
industrial
activities
New
and
Existing
2F
122.26(
c)

Storm
water
discharges
from
MS4s
serving
a
population
greater
than
100,000
New
and
Existing
None
122.26(
d)

Key:
Form
1
­
General
Information.
Standard
Form
A
­
Municipal
(
new
and
existing
major
municipal
facilities).
Short
Form
A
­
Municipal
(
new
and
existing
minor
municipal
facilities).
Form
2B
­
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
and
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Facilities.
Form
2C
­
Existing
Manufacturing,
Commercial,
Mining,
and
Silvicultural
Operations.
Form
2D
­
New
Sources
and
New
Dischargers
Application
for
Permit
to
Discharge
Process
Wastewater.
Form
2E
­
Facilities
Which
Do
Not
Discharge
Process
Wastewater.
Form
2F
­
Application
for
Permit
To
Discharge
Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
With
Industrial
Activity.

30
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
letter
stating
that
no
significant
changes
occurred
at
the
facility
during
the
term
of
the
expiring
permit.

Form
1
­
General
Information
All
facilities
applying
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit,
with
the
exception
of
MS4s
applying
for
a
municipal
storm
water
permit,
must
submit
Form
1.
Form
1
requires
general
facility
information
including:

°
Name,
mailing
address,
facility
contact,
and
facility
location
°
Standard
industrial
classification
(
SIC)
code
and
a
brief
description
of
nature
of
business
°
Topographic
map
showing
the
location
of
the
existing
or
proposed
intake
and
discharge
structures.

4.1.1
Municipal
Application
Requirements
(
Form
A
and
Short
Form
A)

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

°
Name,
mailing
address,
authorized
agent,
and
facility
location
°
Collection
system
type,
areas
served,
and
total
population
served
°
Description
of
influent,
including
major
industrial
facilities
discharging
to
the
system
°
Description
of
treatment
practices
and
plant
design,
schedule
of
improvements,
number
of
discharge
points,
total
volume
discharged,
and
receiving
water
name.

Although
testing
of
the
influent
and
effluent
for
specific
pollutants
is
not
required,
Form
A
does
request
any
available
data
on
the
following
parameters:
flow,

pH,
temperature,
fecal
coliform,
BOD
5,
COD
or
total
organic
carbon
(
TOC),
total
residual
chlorine,
total
solids,
total
dissolved
solids,
settleable
matter,
ammonia,

Kjeldahl
nitrogen,
nitrate,
nitrite,
phosphorus,
and
dissolved
oxygen.
The
municipal
application
regulations
also
require
POTWs
with
design
influent
flows
equal
to
or
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
31
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
greater
than
1.0
mgd,
and
POTWs
with
approved
pretreatment
programs,
to
submit
results
of
whole
effluent
toxicity
(
WET)
testing
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
j)(
1)).
In
addition,

POTWs
with
approved
pretreatment
programs
are
also
required
to
submit
a
written
technical
evaluation
of
the
need
to
revise
local
limits
(
40
CFR
§
122.21(
j)(
4)).

POTWs
with
design
flows
of
less
than
1.0
mgd,
and
which
are
not
required
to
have
an
approved
pretreatment
program,
may
generally
use
Short
Form
A.
Short
Form
A
requires
only
general
information
such
as
the
name,
mailing
address,
and
facility
location
as
well
as
a
description
of
any
major
changes
at
the
facility.

Reg
Update:

On
December
6,
1995,
EPA
proposed
revisions
to
the
municipal
application
requirements
and
accompanying
application
forms
[
60
FR
62545].
The
proposed
regulation
replaces
Form
1,
Form
A,
and
Short
Form
A
with
a
new
Form
2A
for
use
by
all
municipal
dischargers.
Form
2A
is
divided
into
five
individual
sections
that
must
be
completed
depending
on
the
characteristics
of
the
municipal
discharger.
In
the
same
proposal,
EPA
introduced
Form
2S
to
obtain
information
on
municipal
sewage
sludge
such
as
volume,
characteristics,
and
sludge
use
or
disposal
practices.
The
Form
2S
regulations
will
replace
the
interim
sludge
use
and
disposal
application
requirements
that
are
currently
in
use.

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

Form
2B
­
New
and
Existing
Animal
Feeding
Operations
and
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Facilities
Owners
of
new
and
existing
animal
feeding
operations
and
aquatic
animal
production
facilities
must
submit
Application
Form
2B.
The
types
of
information
required
by
Form
2B
include:

°
Animal
feeding
operations
 
Type
and
number
of
animals
in
open
confinement
and
housed
under
roof
 
Number
of
acres
used
for
confinement
feeding
32
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
 
Calendar
month
of
maximum
feeding
and
total
mass
of
food
fed
during
that
month
°
Aquatic
animal
production
facilities
 
Maximum
daily
and
average
monthly
flow
from
each
outfall
 
Number
of
ponds,
raceways,
and
similar
structures
 
Total
yearly
and
maximum
harvestable
weight
for
each
species
of
aquatic
animal.

Form
2C
­
Existing
Manufacturing,
Commercial,
Mining,
and
Silvicultural
Discharges
Operators
of
existing
(
i.
e.,
currently
permitted)
manufacturing,
commercial,

mining,
and
silvicultural
discharges
must
submit
Application
Form
2C.
The
types
of
information
required
in
Form
2C
include:

°
Outfall
location(
s)

°
Flow
characteristics
°
Sources
of
pollutants
°
Intake
and
effluent
characteristics
°
Pollutants
expected
to
be
present
°
Treatment
technologies
°
Production
information
(
if
applicable).

Quantitative
effluent
data
requirements
for
existing
industrial
dischargers
varies
depending
on
the
facility's
discharge
characteristics
and
the
types
of
pollutants
expected
to
be
present
in
the
discharge.

Form
2D
­
New
Manufacturing,
Commercial,
Mining,
and
Silvicultural
Discharges
Operators
of
new
manufacturing,
commercial,
mining,
and
silvicultural
discharges
must
submit
Application
Form
2D.
"
New"
dischargers
are
those
that
have
not
previously
obtained
permits
for
a
discharge
and
have
not
commenced
operation.

The
types
of
information
required
in
Form
2D
include:

°
Expected
outfall
location(
s)

°
Date
of
expected
commencement
of
discharge
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
33
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
°
Expected
flow
characteristics
°
Sources
of
pollutants
°
Treatment
technologies
°
Production
information
(
if
applicable)

°
Expected
intake
and
effluent
characteristics.

Form
2E
­
Manufacturing,
Commercial,
Mining,
and
Silvicultural
Facilities
that
Discharge
Only
Nonprocess
Wastewater
Operators
applying
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit
for
manufacturing,

commercial,
mining,
and
silvicultural
facilities
that
are
not
regulated
by
an
effluent
limitation
guideline
or
new
source
performance
standard,
and
which
discharge
only
non­
process
wastewaters,
must
submit
Application
Form
2E.
"
Nonprocess
wastewaters"
include
sanitary
wastes,
restaurant
or
cafeteria
wastes,
and
non­
contact
cooling
water,
but
do
not
include
storm
water.
Storm
water
is
specifically
excluded
from
the
definition
of
"
non­
process
wastewater."
The
types
of
information
required
in
Form
2E
include:

°
Outfall
location(
s)

°
Type
of
waste
discharged
°
Effluent
characteristics,
including
quantitative
data
for
selected
parameters
°
Flow
characteristics
°
Treatment
technologies.

Form
2F
­
Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
with
Industrial
Activities
Operators
applying
for
an
individual
NPDES
permit
for
discharges
of
storm
water
associated
with
industrial
activity
must
submit
Application
Form
2F.
The
types
of
information
required
in
Form
2F
include:

°
A
topographic
map
and
estimates
of
impervious
surfaces
°
Descriptions
of
material
management
practices
and
control
measures
°
A
certification
that
outfalls
have
been
evaluated
for
non­
storm
water
discharges
°
Descriptions
of
past
leaks
and
spills
°
Analytical
data
from
each
outfall
for
several
specified
parameters.

34
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
Storm
Water
Discharges
from
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewers
Serving
a
Population
of
Greater
Than
100,000
The
1990
Storm
Water
application
regulations
(
55
FR
48062),
list
the
application
requirements
for
operators
of
a
large
or
medium
MS4
to
submit
a
two­
part
application.
Part
1
application
information
was
required
to
be
submitted
by
large
MS4s
(
serving
a
population
>
250,000)
by
November
18,
1991
and
by
medium
MS4s
(
serving
a
population
>
100,000
but
£
250,000)
by
May
18,
1992.
Part
2
application
information
was
required
to
be
submitted
by
large
MS4s
by
November
16,
1992
and
by
medium
MS4s
by
May
17,
1993.
The
following
summarizes
the
key
requirements
of
each
part
of
the
application:

°
Part
1
of
the
application
must
include:

 
General
information
(
e.
g.,
name,
address)
 
Existing
legal
authorities
and
any
additional
authority
required
 
Source
identification
information
 
Discharge
characterization,
including
results
from
dry
weather
flow
screening
 
Identification
of
5
to
10
representative
outfalls
for
storm
water
sampling
 
Description
of
existing
storm
water
management
practices
 
Descriptions
of
existing
financial
budget
and
resources
available
to
complete
Part
2
of
the
application.

°
Part
2
of
the
application
must
include:

 
Demonstration
of
adequate
legal
authority
 
Identification
of
any
major
storm
sewer
outfalls
 
Discharge
characterization
data
from
sampling
three
representative
storm
events
 
Proposed
storm
water
management
program
 
Assessment
of
controls,
including
expected
reductions
in
pollutant
loadings
 
Fiscal
analysis,
including
necessary
capital
and
operation
and
maintenance
expenditures
for
each
year
of
the
permit.

Under
the
NPDES
regulations,
permittees
are
required
to
reapply
for
a
new
NPDES
permit
prior
to
the
expiration
of
their
existing
permit.
However,
in
the
case
of
storm
water
permits
for
MS4s,
Part
1
and
Part
2
application
requirements
were
intended
only
for
the
initial
issuance
of
a
MS4
permit
and
specific
requirements
for
reapplication
have
not
been
defined
in
the
regulations.
On
May
17,
1996,
EPA
issued
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
35
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
a
policy
which
sets
forth
a
streamlined
approach
for
reapplication
requirements
for
operators
of
MS4s.
It
allows
municipalities
to
use
recommended
changes
submitted
in
their
fourth
annual
report
as
the
principal
component
of
their
reapplication
package.
It
also
encourages
changes
to
monitoring
programs
to
make
them
appropriate
and
useful
to
storm
water
management
decisions.
With
the
policy,
EPA
seeks
to
improve
municipal
storm
water
management
efforts
by
allowing
municipalities
to
target
their
resources
for
the
greatest
environmental
benefit.

4.1.3
Application
Requirements
for
NPDES
General
Permits
As
previously
discussed,
general
permits
(
see
40
CFR
§
122.28)
are
permits
that
are
developed
for
storm
water
dischargers
or
a
specific
category
of
dischargers
within
a
specified
geographic
or
political
boundary.
The
use
of
a
general
permit
may
simplify
the
permitting
process
for
both
EPA
and
the
permittee.
Unlike
individual
permits,
however,
operators
can
only
apply
for
coverage
under
a
general
permit
if
one
has
been
issued
that
is
applicable
to
the
type
of
facility
for
which
coverage
is
sought
and
covers
the
facility's
activities.
In
addition,
the
permitting
authority
may
determine
that
a
general
permit
is
not
appropriate
for
a
particular
facility
applying
for
coverage
under
the
general
permit,
and
can
require
the
facility
to
apply
for
an
individual
permit.

Furthermore,
a
facility
that
otherwise
qualifies
for
a
general
permit
may
opt
to
apply
for
an
individual
permit.

An
applicant
for
a
general
permit,
in
almost
all
cases,
must
apply
by
submitting
a
Notice
of
Intent
(
NOI)
to
be
covered
under
the
permit.
The
contents
of
a
NOI,
and
any
additional
information
requirements,
must
be
specified
in
the
general
permit
and
in
the
fact
sheet
or
instructions,
and
at
a
minimum
must
include
the
following:

°
Name
and
address
of
the
owner
or
operator
°
Name
and
address
of
the
facility
°
Type
of
facility
or
discharges
°
The
receiving
stream(
s).

4.2
Application
Deadlines
The
Federal
regulations
contained
in
40
CFR
§
122.21
require
that
applications
for
new
discharges
be
made
no
later
than
180
days
before
discharges
actually
begin.

36
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
Applications
for
permit
renewals
(
i.
e.,
for
existing
dischargers)
must
be
made
at
least
180
days
before
the
expiration
of
the
existing
NPDES
permit.
Authorized
states,

however,
may
have
slightly
different
schedules
but
generally
no
less
stringent.

Furthermore,
the
State
Director
or
the
Regional
Administrator
may
allow
individual
applications
to
be
submitted
at
dates
later
than
these
but
not
later
than
the
expiration
date
of
the
existing
permit.

It
should
be
noted
that
according
to
40
CFR
§
122.6,
an
expired
NPDES
permit
remains
in
effect
until
the
new
permit
is
issued
as
long
as
the
application
for
permit
renewal
was
submitted
on
time
and
complete
(
per
40
CFR
§
122.21).
However,
if
State
law
does
not
allow
expired
permits
to
remain
in
effect
until
a
permit
is
reissued,

or
if
the
permit
application
is
not
on
time
and
complete,
the
facility
is
considered
to
be
discharging
without
a
permit
from
the
time
the
permit
expired
until
the
effective
date
of
the
new
permit.

4.3
Review
of
the
Application
The
contents
of
individual
NPDES
permits
are
based
in
part
upon
the
information
included
in
the
application.
Thus,
the
application
must
be
complete
and
accurate
before
a
permit
writer
can
properly
develop
a
permit.
Exhibit
4­
2
depicts
a
general
process
for
reviewing
a
permit
application.

After
the
initial
review
of
an
application,
the
permit
writer
may
request
that
an
applicant
submit
other
information
which
may
be
needed
in
deciding
whether
to
issue
a
permit.
The
requested
information
may
include:

°
Additional
information,
quantitative
data,
or
recalculated
data
°
Submission
of
a
new
form
(
if
an
inappropriate
form
was
used)
°
Resubmission
of
application
(
if
incomplete
or
outdated
information
was
initially
submitted).

A
considerable
amount
of
correspondence,
therefore,
may
be
required
before
the
permit
writer
obtains
an
application
that
can
be
considered
complete
and
accurate.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
37
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
Review
Permit
Application
Require
new
application
on
correct
form
981B­
08
Is
the
application
on
the
correct
form?

Does
the
application
include
all
outfalls,
priority
pollutant,
sludge
and
toxicity
data
when
required?

Does
the
application
have
all
of
the
information
necessary
to
adequately
characterize
the
nature
and
quantity
of
pollutants
in
the
effluent
and
their
impact
on
the
receiving
water?

Are
all
calculation
and
flow
diagrams
correct
May
begin
public
notice
of
application
now
or
after
facility
inspection
Establish
schedule
for
submittal
of
required
information
Establish
schedule
for
submittal
of
required
information
Request
recalculation
and
resubmittal
No
No
No
No
Review
Activities
Applicant
Follow­
Up
*

*
(
as
necessary)
EXHIBIT
4­
2
Permit
Application
Review
38
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
4.3.1
The
Complete
Application
Regulations
under
40
CFR
§
122.21(
e)
state
that
the
Director
"
shall
not
issue
a
permit
before
receiving
a
complete
application...."
At
a
minimum,
the
application
form
must
have
all
applicable
spaces
filled
in.
Instructions
for
the
application
form
states
that
all
items
must
be
completed
and
that
the
statement
"
not
applicable"
(
NA)
be
used
to
indicate
that
the
item
had
been
considered
by
the
applicant.
Blanks
on
a
form
can
occur
for
a
number
of
reasons,
such
as:

°
The
response
was
inadvertently
left
out;
or
°
The
applicant
had
difficulty
determining
the
correct
response
and
rather
than
provide
misleading
or
incorrect
information,
left
the
space
blank.

A
response
to
the
blank
items
must
be
obtained
by
contacting
the
facility
in
writing
or,
in
some
cases,
by
telephone.
Because
of
the
administrative
record
(
discussed
in
Chapter
11)
that
must
be
maintained
in
processing
an
application,
and
the
possibility
of
legal
challenges
regarding
permit
decisions,
it
is
recommended
that
only
minor
items
be
handled
by
telephone,
and
even
these
should
be
documented
in
writing.

If
the
changes
or
corrections
to
any
application
are
extensive,
the
permit
writer
may
require
the
permit
applicant
to
submit
a
new
application.
Supplementary
information,
such
as
more
detailed
production
information
or
maintenance
and
operating
data
for
a
treatment
system,
may
also
be
required
to
process
the
permit.

Supplementary
information
can
also
be
obtained
at
a
later
date
when
the
permit
writer
is
actually
drafting
the
permit.
According
to
40
CFR
§
122.21(
e),
an
application
is
considered
to
be
complete
when
the
permit
writer
is
satisfied
that
all
required
information
has
been
submitted.

4.3.2
Common
Omissions
and
Errors
in
Applications
This
section
identifies
some
of
the
most
common
omissions
and
errors
found
in
NPDES
permit
applications.
Examples
of
ways
to
identify
missing
information
and
of
verifying
the
accuracy
of
some
of
the
data
are
also
provided.

One
of
the
most
common
items
overlooked
is
the
provision
of
a
topographic
map
which
is
required
as
an
attachment
to
Form
1.
Other
industrial­
or
municipal­

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
39
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
specific
information
is
also
often
omitted.
For
example,
industrial
applicants
sometimes
fail
to
submit
a
process
line
diagram
required
by
Part
II­
A
of
Form
2C.

The
process
line
diagram
is
important
for
ensuring
that
the
location
and
description
of
the
outfalls
and
the
description
of
processes
(
Parts
I
and
II­
B
of
Form
2C)
given
by
the
applicants
are
accurate.

Often,
applicants
do
not
properly
submit
the
effluent
characterization
data
required
for
the
permit
applications.
Applicants
may
fail
to
submit
data
necessary
to
properly
characterize
the
facility.
The
following
highlights
some
of
the
data
requirements
that
are
required
in
applications:

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

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

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

°
Non­
municipal
dischargers
categorized
as
"
primary
industries"
have
some
mandatory
testing
requirements
for
toxic
pollutants
(
see
40
CFR
§
122.21,
Appendix
D,
Table
I
and
Table
II;
also
listed
in
Application
Form
2C).
Primary
industries
are
identified
in
Appendix
A
of
40
CFR
Part
122.
Primary
industries
that
are
also
small
businesses
[
see
40
CFR
§
122.21(
g)(
8)]
may
be
exempted
from
these
testing
requirements.
Existing
dischargers
who
believe
certain
pollutants
may
be
present
in
their
effluent
must
test
for
those
pollutants
(
40
CFR
§
122.21
Appendix
D,
Table
IV
and
Table
V).

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

°
Sample
types
for
all
required
pollutants
and
parameters
must
be
appropriate
for
the
parameter
being
analyzed
(
as
per
40
CFR
Part
136;
see
Sections
7.1.3
and
7.1.4
for
more
information).
For
example,
only
grab
samples
may
be
used
for
pH,
temperature,
cyanide,
total
phenols,
volatile
40
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
organics,
residual
chlorine,
oil
and
grease,
fecal
coliform,
and
fecal
streptococcus.

Examples
of
the
types
of
data
that
the
permit
writer
will
need
to
obtain
before
the
application
can
be
considered
complete
are
given
in
the
text
boxes
which
follow.

Are
required
toxic
organic
pollutants
(
gas
chromatograph/
mass
spectrometer
[
GC/
MS]
fractions)
listed?

Example:

An
application
from
a
plastics
processor
fails
to
list
any
GC/
MS
fraction.

Discussion:

The
plastics
processor
is
required
to
test
for
the
volatile
GC/
MS
fraction
(
Table
2C­
2
in
the
application
form
instructions
and
40
CFR
§
122.21(
g)(
7)(
ii)(
A)
of
the
NPDES
regulations).

Are
required
heavy
metals
listed?

Example:

A
primary
felt
producer
marks
thallium
and
beryllium
as
believed
absent
in
the
wastewater.

Discussion:

Although
thallium
and
beryllium
are
not
expected
to
be
found
in
a
felt
producer's
discharge,
page
2C­
3
of
the
application
form
instructions
and
40
CFR
§
122.21(
g)(
7)(
ii)(
B)
require
testing
for
these
metals.
Occasionally,
unexpected
contaminants
will
be
present
in
a
waste
stream
due
to
poor
housekeeping,
unusual
production
methods,
etc.

The
comprehensive
testing
requirements
that
apply
to
the
various
categories
of
industry
are
designed
to
determine
whether
any
unexpected
contaminants
are
present
in
significant
quantities,
as
well
as
to
determine
levels
of
pollutants
that
are
known
to
be
present.
In
the
above
example,
the
submission
is
incomplete
because
additional
information
is
needed
and
"
believed
absent"
is
wrongly
indicated.

Are
all
expected
pollutants
listed?

Example:

A
producer
of
wood­
resin­
based
derivatives
does
not
indicate
the
presence
of
zinc
in
his
wastewater.

Discussion:

Testing
for
zinc
is
required.
Zinc
is
used
as
a
catalyst
in
the
production
of
wood­
resin­
based
derivatives.
This
type
of
information
can
be
found
in
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
development
documents.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
41
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
What
pollutant
data
are
needed
to
characterize
the
industries
above?

Example:

Consider
the
plastics
processor,
the
felt
producer,
and
the
producer
of
wood­
resin­
based
derivatives,
mentioned
above,
and
answer
the
following
questions:

°
For
which
toxic
organic
pollutants
are
they
required
to
test?
°
For
which
heavy
metals
are
they
required
to
test?
°
Which
metals
would
you
expect
to
find
in
their
wastewaters
regardless
of
whether
testing
is
required
or
not?

Discussion:

The
application
form
in
Table
2C­
2
and
40
CFR
§
122.21(
g)(
7)(
ii)(
A)
of
the
NPDES
regulations
require
testing
of
the
volatile
GC/
MS
fraction
by
the
plastics
processor,
and
testing
of
all
four
GC/
MS
fractions
by
the
felt
producer
and
the
producer
of
wood­
resin­
based
derivatives.
Page
2C­
3
of
the
application
instructions
and
40
CFR
§
122.21(
g)(
7)(
ii)(
B)
require
testing
of
all
of
the
metals
listed
in
item
V
part
C1
of
the
application
form
by
all
three
manufacturers.
For
the
expected
metals,
see
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
development
documents
for
information.

4.3.3
The
Accurate
Application
All
information
submitted
on
a
permit
application
should
be
accurate,
in
addition
to
being
complete.
Although
it
may
be
difficult
to
detect
certain
inaccuracies,
a
number
of
common
mistakes
can
be
readily
detected.
When
mistakes
are
detected,

they
must
be
corrected.
The
permit
writer
should
follow
the
same
procedures
for
correcting
inaccurate
information
as
used
for
obtaining
missing
information.
The
following
text
boxes
contain
examples
that
reflect
the
types
of
questions
that
the
permit
writer
may
consider
while
reviewing
the
permit
application.

Can
we
verify
flow
data
using
a
water
balance
calculation?

Example:

An
industrial
user
has
estimated
a
wastestream
flow
of
50,000
gpd
using
water
usage
records.
However,
a
review
of
historical
water
usage
records
and
an
old
permit
application
indicates
wastewater
flows
ranged
from
100,000
to
150,000
gpd.
The
facility
had
not
instituted
any
water­
reduction
measures,
significantly
changed
its
process
operations,
or
decreased
its
number
of
employees.

Discussion:

An
inspection
of
the
facility
revealed
two
separate
water
meters
(
one
for
sanitary
and
one
for
process
water);
the
industrial
user
had
overlooked
the
sanitary
meter.
Further,
the
process
water
meter
was
found
to
be
defective.
Subsequent
flow
monitoring
of
the
total
wastestream
recorded
a
flow
of
125,000
gpd.
A
new
water
meter
was
installed
and
concurrent
wastestream
flow
monitoring
and
water
meter
readings
resulted
in
the
following
water
balances:

°
Water
In
(
based
on
both
water
meter
readings):
148,000
gpd
(
131,000
gpd
process
line
and
17,000
gpd
sanitary
line)

°
Water
Out
(
based
on
wastestream
flow
monitoring):
125,000
gpd
total
wastestream
discharged
to
sewer
system.
Evaporative
and
consumption
losses
were
estimated
at
23,000
gpd
(
15
percent
of
total
water
usage).

42
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
Do
the
concentration,
mass,
and
flow
values
correspond?

Example:

Suppose
the
maximum
daily
flow
is
shown
as
1.2
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD),
the
maximum
daily
suspended
solids
concentration
is
23
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
l),
and
the
maximum
daily
mass
discharge
is
reported
as
690
pounds
per
day
(
lbs/
day).

23
mg/
l
x
8.34
x
1.2
MGD
=
230
lb/
d
The
mass
corresponding
to
the
solids
concentration
(
23
mg/
l)
and
flow
(
1.2
MGD)
is
230
pounds
per
day.
However,
the
maximum
daily
mass
discharge
is
690
pounds
per
day.

Discussion:

Assuming
that
the
maximum
daily
flow
and
the
maximum
daily
concentration
occurred
on
the
same
day
(
worst
case
scenario),
the
highest
mass
discharge
should
not
exceed
230
pounds
per
day.
Since
the
applicant
reported
a
maximum
mass
discharge
of
690
pounds
per
day,
a
significant
discrepancy
is
indicated.
The
permit
writer
should
contact
the
facility
to
resolve
the
discrepancy.

Do
concentration
values
correspond
with
analytical
detection
limits?

Example:

The
acid
GC/
MS
fraction
(
phenols)
compounds
are
all
reported
as
less
than
1
mg/
l.

Discussion:

According
to
40
CFR
Part
136,
the
detection
limits
for
the
compounds
in
this
organic
fraction
are
all
near
0.01
mg/
l.
Probably
the
4AAP
method
for
phenols
was
used,
rather
than
the
required
testing
procedure
using
GC/
MS.

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

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

°
The
current
permit
°
The
fact
sheet
or
statement
of
basis
for
the
current
permit
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
43
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
°
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
(
DMRs)

°
Compliance
inspection
reports
°
Engineering
reports
°
Correspondence
or
information
on
changes
in
plant
conditions
or
problems,
and
compliance
issues.

Much
of
this
information,
particularly
DMR
data,
may
be
already
stored
in
an
interoffice
automated
data
tracking
system
such
as
the
EPA
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS).

The
permit
writer
may
check
with
other
permit
writers
who
have
permitted
similar
types
of
facilities
to
see
if
there
are
any
special
considerations
related
to
the
facility
to
be
permitted.
A
permit
writer
also
may
wish
to
discuss
compliance
issues,

changes,
or
history
of
complaints
with
compliance
personnel
who
conducted
previous
inspections
of
the
facility.
Examples
of
some
other
sources
of
information
that
could
be
used
by
the
permit
writer
include:

°
EPA
development
documents
that
contain
detailed
information
that
was
collected
by
the
EPA
for
the
purpose
of
developing
effluent
guidelines
and
categorical
pretreatment
standards
for
a
variety
of
industrial
categories
°
Reference
textbooks,
which
address
specific
industry
categories
and
which
are
available
from
the
National
Technical
Information
Service
(
NTIS),
United
States
EPA
library
and
other
libraries.
These
technical
documents
provide
information
about
manufacturing
processes
and
wastestreams.

°
EPA's
Treatability
Manual,
3
which
is
a
five­
volume
guidance
(
also
refer
to
glossary)
and
which
provides
detailed
descriptions
of
industrial
processes,
potential
pollutants
from
each
process,
appropriate
treatment
technologies,
and
cost
estimating
procedures
°
Receiving
water
quality
data
(
e.
g.,
the
EPA
Storage
and
Retrieval
data
base
[
STORET])

°
Related
environmental
permits
that
could
provide
site­
specific
background
information
about
the
types
of
pollutants
and
wastestreams
at
a
facility,
including,
for
example:

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

3USEPA
(
1980).
Treatability
Manual,
Volumes
I
­
V.
EPA­
600/
8­
80­
042a­
e.
Office
of
Research
and
Development.

44
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
transporters,
and
owners
and
operators
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
[
42
USC
6901
et
seq.]
 
Clean
Air
Act
permit
 
which
regulates
the
discharge
of
atmospheric
pollutants.

°
The
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI),
which
is
accessible
on
EPA's
mainframe
and
through
a
public
online
service.
TRI
contains
facility
information
on
over
300
listed
toxic
chemicals
released
by
specific
facilities,
including
chemical
identification,
quantity
of
chemical
released
to
various
environmental
media,
offsite
waste
transfer
and
waste
treatment
and
minimization
information.

If
the
permit
writer
must
address
special
conditions
in
the
permits
for
municipal
dischargers
for
development
or
implementation
of
a
pretreatment
program,
combined
sewer
overflows
(
CSOs),
sanitary
sewer
overflows
(
SSOs),
sewage
sludge
use
or
disposal,
or
storm
water
discharges,
information
relevant
to
these
issues
would
need
to
be
obtained.
Such
information
may
be
found
in:

°
Annual
pretreatment
reports,
pretreatment
compliance
inspections
and
audits
°
CSO
reports
°
Bypass
notifications
or
SSOs
reports
°
Storm
water
discharge
applications
or
NOI
for
a
general
permit.

4.4.2
Facility
Site
Visits
Facility
site
visits
can
be
invaluable
to
update
information
on
manufacturing
processes,
obtain
information
about
the
facility's
operations,
equipment
or
management,
and
to
verify
application
information.
A
site
visit
also
acquaints
the
permit
writer
with
the
people
who
will
be
operating
under
the
permit
and
participating
in
the
permit
development
process.

Site
visits
may
also
allow
the
permit
writer
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
more
complex
facilities.
Site
visits
are
especially
warranted
if
significant
pollution
control
or
treatment
improvements
will
be
required,
if
there
have
been
frequent
problems
in
complying
with
the
present
permit,
if
there
are
known
problems
with
spills
or
leaks
or
with
contaminated
surface
runoff,
or
if
there
are
other
onsite
activities
that
may
impact
the
characteristics
of
the
discharge
from
the
facility.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
45
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
The
site
visit
should
include
a
detailed
review
of
production
processes
in
order
to
evaluate
the
types
of
toxic
or
hazardous
substances
that
may
be
present
in
raw
materials,
as
well
as
in
products
and
byproducts.
The
water
uses,
the
resulting
wastewater
streams,
and
any
in­
process
pollution
controls
should
be
reviewed.
This
review
is
needed
to
assist
in
selecting
toxic
and
other
pollutants
to
be
limited
and
in
evaluating
possible
in­
process
control
improvements.

In
addition,
the
site
visit
should
include
a
review
of
the
performance,
operation
and
maintenance
practices
of
wastewater
treatment
facilities.
This
review
is
useful
in
evaluating
the
adequacy
of
existing
treatment
performance
and
assessing
the
feasibility
of
improvements
and
performance.
Effluent
monitoring
points,
sampling
methods,
and
analytical
techniques
should
also
be
examined
to
identify
any
needed
changes
to
monitoring
requirements
and
to
evaluate
the
quality
of
DMR
data.

Raw
material
and
product
storage
and
loading
areas,
sludge
storage
and
disposal
areas,
hazardous
waste
management
facilities,
including
onsite
disposal
areas,
and
all
process
areas
should
be
observed
to
determine
the
need
for
controls
on
surface
runoff
and
for
specific
best
management
practices
(
BMPs).
As
noted
previously,
the
information
from
other
environmental
programs
(
e.
g.,
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liabilities
Act
[
CERCLA];
RCRA)
may
be
important
in
this
regard.

While
onsite,
the
permit
writer
should
note
any
needs
for
spill
prevention
and
housekeeping
problems,
which
are
not
usually
well­
described
in
permit
applications.
If
allowed,
photographs
of
problem
areas
should
be
taken
for
future
use
during
permit
preparation.
A
meeting
with
management
should
be
included
if
necessary
to
ask
questions
and
clarify
information
on
the
permit
application.
If
any
inaccuracies
in
the
application
were
found
as
a
result
of
the
site
visit,
corrected
information
should
be
requested
at
this
time.

The
time
required
to
conduct
a
site
visit
will
vary
according
to
the
complexity
of
the
facility.
For
facilities
with
only
a
few
basic
processes,
one
main
waste
treatment
system,
limited
in­
process
controls,
few
surface
runoff
outfalls,
and
limited
onsite
management
of
sludges
or
hazardous
wastes,
an
adequate
site
visit
can
most
likely
46
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
The
Permit
Application
Process
Chapter
4
be
completed
in
1
day.
Complex,
larger
plants
with
several
treatment
systems,

numerous
outfalls,
and
extensive
ancillary
activities
may
require
several
days.

Time
spent
on
site
visits
often
results
in
time
savings
during
permit
preparation.

However,
time
and/
or
travel
resources
are
generally
not
adequate
to
allow
viewing
of
all
facilities
to
be
permitted.
In
such
cases,
the
permit
writer
may
be
able
to
obtain
much
of
the
desired
information
from
the
next
(
or
previous)
compliance
inspection
performed
at
the
facility.

Aerial
photographs
are
also
an
excellent
aid
for
conducting
a
plant
visit
and
may
provide
much
of
the
needed
information
on
the
potential
for
contamination
of
surface
runoff
and
on
ancillary
activities
in
the
absence
of
a
site
visit
or
inspection.
In
addition,
comparison
of
aerial
photographs
with
site
and
process
diagrams
provided
with
the
application
may
provide
the
permit
writer
with
a
complete
visual
description
of
the
facility.
Aerial
photographs
may
be
obtained
from
a
variety
of
sources,
including
the
United
States
Geological
Survey
(
USGS),
Environmental
Services
Division
in
some
EPA
Regions,
the
National
Enforcement
Investigation
Center,
Las
Vegas,
Nevada;
the
Environmental
Photo
Interpretation
Lab,
Vint
Hill,
Virginia;
and
private
contractors.

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

°
Name
and
address
of
the
applicant
°
Permit
applications
and
information
submitted
with
applications
°
Permits
°
Effluent
data.

Any
claims
of
confidentiality
must
be
made
at
the
time
of
submission
or
the
information
will
not
be
considered
confidential.

Information
that
may
be
treated
as
confidential
includes
material
related
to
manufacturing
processes
unique
to
the
applicant,
or
if
such
information
might
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
47
Chapter
4
The
Permit
Application
Process
adversely
affect
the
competitive
position
of
the
applicant
if
released
to
the
public.

Under
these
circumstances,
the
permit
writer
will
be
required
to
treat
the
information
as
confidential
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
2.

48
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
When
developing
effluent
limits
for
a
NPDES
permit,
a
permit
writer
must
consider
limits
based
on
both
the
technology
available
to
treat
the
pollutants
(
i.
e.,

technology­
based
effluent
limits),
and
limits
that
are
protective
of
the
designated
uses
of
the
receiving
water
(
water
quality­
based
effluent
limits).
This
chapter
discusses
considerations
for
deriving
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
for
both
non­
municipal
(
i.
e.,
industrial)
and
municipal
discharges.

There
are
two
general
approaches
for
developing
technology­
based
effluent
limits
for
industrial
facilities:
(
1)
using
national
effluent
limitations
guidelines
(
ELGs)

and
(
2)
using
Best
Professional
Judgment
(
BPJ)
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
in
the
absence
of
ELGs).
Technology­
based
effluent
limits
for
municipal
facilities
(
POTWs)

are
derived
from
secondary
treatment
standards.
The
intent
of
a
technology­
based
effluent
limitation
is
to
require
a
minimum
level
of
treatment
for
industrial/
municipal
point
sources
based
on
currently
available
treatment
technologies
while
allowing
the
discharger
to
use
any
available
control
technique
to
meet
the
limitations.

For
industrial
sources,
the
national
ELGs
are
developed
based
on
the
demonstrated
performance
of
a
reasonable
level
of
treatment
that
is
within
the
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
49
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
economic
means
of
specific
categories
of
industrial
facilities.
Where
national
ELGs
have
not
been
developed,
the
same
performance­
based
approach
is
applied
to
a
specific
industrial
facility
based
on
the
permit
writer's
BPJ.
In
some
cases,
effluent
limits
based
on
ELGs
and
BPJ
(
as
well
as
water
quality
considerations)
may
be
included
in
a
single
permit.

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

5.1.1
Statutory
and
Regulatory
Foundation
Originally,
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
amendments
of
1972
directed
EPA
to
develop
standards
of
performance
(
effluent
limitation
guidelines)
for
industrial
categories.
Specifically,
for
"
existing"
industrial
dischargers,
the
Act
directed
the
achievement:

"...
by
July
1,
1977,
of
effluent
limitations
which
will
require
application
of
the
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available
[
BPT],
and
by
July
1,
1983,
of
effluent
limitations
which
will
require
application
of
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
[
BAT]."

EPA
defined
BPT
performance
as
the
"
average
of
the
best
existing
performance
by
well
operated
plants
within
each
industrial
category
or
subcategory."
The
BAT
level
of
performance
was
defined
as
the
"
very
best
control
and
treatment
measures
that
have
been
or
are
capable
of
being
achieved."
The
1972
amendments,
however,
made
no
distinction
regarding
the
application
of
BPT
or
BAT
to
different
types
of
pollutants
(
i.
e.,

50
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
BPT
and
BAT
applied
to
all
pollutants).
The
CWA
did
provide
additional
guidance
for
determining
the
economic
achievability
of
BPT
and
BAT.
The
BPT
standards
required
that
effluent
limits
be
justified
in
terms
of
the
"
total
cost
of
[
industry
wide]
application
of
the
technology
in
relation
to
the
effluent
reduction
benefits
to
be
achieved."
Thus,

BPT
required
EPA
to
consider
a
cost­
benefit
test
that
considered
a
broad
range
of
engineering
factors
relating
to
a
category's
ability
to
achieve
the
limits.
For
BAT,
the
Agency
must
still
consider
the
cost
of
attainability,
however,
it
is
not
required
to
balance
cost
against
the
effluent
reduction
benefit.

In
addition
to
BPT
and
BAT
requirements,
Section
306
of
the
1972
amendments
established
more
restrictive
requirements
for
"
new
sources."
EPA
has
defined
"
new
source"
as
any
facility
that
commenced
construction
following
the
publication
of
the
proposed
standards
of
performance.
The
intent
of
this
special
set
of
guidelines
is
to
set
limitations
that
represent
state­
of­
the­
art
treatment
technology
for
new
sources
because
these
dischargers
have
the
opportunity
to
install
the
latest
in
treatment
technology
at
the
time
of
start­
up.
These
standards,
identified
as
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS),
are
described
as
the
best
available
demonstrated
control
technology,
processes,
operating
methods,
or
other
alternatives
including,
where
practicable,
standards
permitting
no
discharge
of
pollutants.
NSPSs
are
effective
on
the
date
of
the
commencement
of
a
new
facility's
operation
and
the
facility
must
demonstrate
compliance
within
90
days
[
see
40
CFR
§
122.29(
d)].
A
major
difference
between
NSPS
and
either
BPT
or
BAT,
is
the
absence
of
the
kind
of
requirements
for
a
detailed
consideration
of
costs
and
benefits
when
establishing
the
technology
requirements.

As
noted
above,
the
1972
amendments
tasked
EPA
with
developing
ELGs
representing
application
of
BPT,
BAT,
and
NSPS;
however,
EPA
was
unable
to
complete
development
of
all
effluent
guidelines
within
the
statutory
deadlines.
In
addition,
EPA
did
not
fully
address
toxic
discharges
in
the
guidelines
it
did
promulgate.

As
a
result,
EPA
was
sued
by
several
environmental
groups
for
failing
to
accomplish
the
promulgation
of
effluent
guidelines
as
directed
by
the
1972
amendments.
As
a
consequence
of
the
suit,
EPA
and
the
environmental
groups
entered
into
a
settlement
agreement
that
required
EPA
to
develop
a
program
and
adhere
to
a
schedule
for
promulgating
BAT
effluent
guidelines,
pretreatment
standards,
and
NSPSs
(
NRDC
v.

Train,
1976).
The
standards
focused
on
65
toxic
"
priority
pollutants"
(
including
classes
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
51
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
of
pollutants)
for
21
major
categories
of
industries
(
known
as
"
primary"
industries).

This
settlement
was
incorporated
in
the
1977
amendments
to
the
Act.
This
settlement
was
further
amended
to
include
a
total
of
34
major
categories
of
industries
and
129
priority
pollutants
(
NRDC
v.
Costle,
March
1979).
[
Note:
The
list
of
priority
pollutants
was
subsequently
revised
to
include
126
specific
parameters
which
are
listed
in
Appendix
A
of
40
CFR
§
423.]

In
light
of
the
settlement
agreement,
the
1977
amendments
to
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
(
renamed
the
Clean
Water
Act
[
CWA])
revised
the
scope
and
application
of
BAT
requirements
to
focus
solely
on
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants.
The
amendments
also
required
the
application
of
the
best
conventional
pollutant
control
technology
(
BCT)
for
conventional
pollutants.
Both
the
BAT
and
BCT
standards
were
defined
to
represent
the
best
control
and
treatment
measures
that
have
been
developed
or
that
are
capable
of
being
developed
within
the
industrial
category
or
subcategory.
With
respect
to
the
cost
reasonableness,
the
1977
CWA
left
the
BAT
definition
relatively
unchanged.
For
BCT,
EPA
was
to
consider
the
reasonableness
of
the
relationship
between
the
cost
of
attaining
a
reduction
in
effluent
discharge
and
the
benefits
that
would
result.
The
cost
of
meeting
BCT
limits
was
expected
by
Congress
to
be
comparable
to
the
costs
of
achieving
secondary
treatment
[
see
discussion
in
Section
5.2]
for
POTWs.

As
noted
in
the
discussion
of
the
statutory
evolution
of
the
technology­
based
standards,
deadlines
for
development
of
the
various
standards
were
established
by
the
CWA
and
amendments.
Due
to
technical
and
administrative
difficulties,
most
of
the
initial
deadlines
were
postponed.
A
summary
of
final
statutory
deadlines
for
the
different
required
levels
of
treatment
technologies
is
provided
in
Exhibit
5­
1.

When
applying
applicable
ELGs
in
permits,
permit
writers
need
to
be
aware
that
they
do
not
have
the
authority
to
extend
statutory
deadlines
in
a
NPDES
permit;
thus,

all
applicable
technology­
based
requirements
(
i.
e.,
ELGs
and
BPJ)
must
be
applied
in
NPDES
permits
without
the
benefit
of
a
compliance
schedule.

52
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
EXHIBIT
5­
1
Statutory
Deadlines
for
BPT,
BAT,
and
BCT
Pollutant
Level
of
Treatment
Statutory
Deadlines
Conventional
Conventional
BPT
BCT
July
1,
1977
March
31,
1989
Nonconventional
Nonconventional
BPT
BAT
July
1,
1977
March
31,
1989
Toxic
Toxic
BPT
BAT
July
1,
1977
March
31,
1989
5.1.2
Development
of
National
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Performance
Standards
Effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
performance
standards
are
established
by
EPA
for
different
industrial
categories
since
the
best
control
technology
for
one
industry
is
not
necessarily
the
best
for
another.
These
guidelines
are
developed
based
on
the
degree
of
pollutant
reduction
attainable
by
an
industrial
category
through
the
application
of
control
technologies,
irrespective
of
the
facility
location.
Using
these
factors,
similar
facilities
are
regulated
in
the
same
manner.
In
theory,
for
example,
a
pulp
and
paper
mill
on
the
west
coast
of
the
United
States
would
be
required
to
meet
the
same
technology­
based
limitations
as
an
identical
plant
located
on
the
east
coast
(
unless
there
were
special
site­
specific
concerns
that
had
to
be
addressed).

To
date,
EPA
has
established
guidelines
and
standards
for
more
than
50
different
industrial
categories
(
e.
g.,
metal
finishing
facilities,
steam
electric
power
plants,
iron
and
steel
manufacturing
facilities).
These
guidelines
appear
in
40
CFR
Parts
405­
499,
a
list
of
which
is
provided
in
Appendix
B.
Additionally,
Section
304(
m)

of
the
1987
Water
Quality
Act
(
WQA)
requires
EPA
to
publish
a
biennial
plan
for
developing
new
ELGs
and
a
schedule
for
the
annual
review
and
revision
of
existing
promulgated
guidelines.
As
such,
EPA
is
constantly
developing
new
guidelines,
and
revising
or
updating
existing
guidelines.

Developing
ELGs
is
a
complicated
and
time­
consuming
effort.
A
schematic
showing
the
general
guidelines
development
process
is
presented
in
Exhibit
5­
2.
The
regulations
are
based
on
complex
engineering
and
economic
studies
that
determine
a
subcategorization
scheme
for
each
industrial
category
and
the
wastewater
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
53
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Proposed
Regulation
Select
Preferred
Options
Industry
Designated
in
Effluent
Guideline
Plan
Select
Plants
for
Visits
Survey
Questionnaire
°
Engineering
°
Economics
Site
Reports
on
technology
Lab
analysis
of
field
sampling
Studies
on
Process
Modifications
and
Treatability
Critical
Path
Non­
Critical
Path
Statistical
Analysis
of
field
data
Engineering
Economic,
Statistical
Analysis
of
Response
Review
available
data
 
identify
data
gaps
Plant
Visits
 
Process
&
treatments
assessment
 
In­
process
&
stream
sampling
Assess
Technology
technology
performance,
water
use,
costs,
residuals,
etc.

Technology
Costing
Subcategorization
Economic
Analysis
Develop
Regulatory
Options
Calculate
Effluent
Limitations
Environmental
Assessments
981B­
10
Secondary
Data
Collection
EXHIBIT
5­
2
Effluent
Guidelines
Flowchart
54
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
characteristics
and
treatment
capabilities
of
each
industrial
category
and/
or
subcategory.
The
CWA
requires
EPA
to
assess
certain
factors
when
establishing
ELGs,
including
the
following:

°
Age
of
the
equipment
and
facilities
involved
°
Manufacturing
processes
used
°
Engineering
aspects
of
the
application
of
recommended
control
technologies,
including
process
changes
and
in­
plant
controls
°
Non­
water
quality
impacts,
including
energy
requirements
°
Cost
°
Other
factors,
as
deemed
appropriate.

Where
necessary,
EPA
sets
multiple
ELGs
for
facilities
within
a
given
category,
where
data
indicates
varying
conditions
warranting
different
requirements.
These
subdivisions,
known
as
subcategories,
provide
EPA
with
a
second
level
of
regulatory
control
to
improve
consistency
of
the
guidelines
within
an
industrial
category.

EPA
develops
both
daily
maximum
and
long­
term
average
limitations
for
all
ELGs,
both
of
which
must
be
included
in
the
permit
by
the
permit
writer.
The
daily
maximum
limitations
are
based
on
the
assumption
that
daily
pollutant
measurements
are
lognormally
distributed.
Long­
term
average
limitations
are
based
on
the
distribution
of
averages
of
measurements
drawn
from
the
distribution
of
daily
measurements.
When
designing
a
treatment
system,
EPA
recommends
that
the
permittee
target
the
design
of
its
treatment
system
to
meet
the
long­
term
average
rather
than
the
daily
maximum.
The
daily
maximum
is
intended
to
account
for
variation
in
effluent
concentration
above
the
long­
term
average.

It
should
be
noted
that
ELGs
are
not
always
established
for
every
pollutant
present
in
a
point
source
discharge.
In
many
instances,
ELGs
are
established
only
for
those
pollutants
that
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
industrial
facilities
comply
with
the
technology­
based
requirements
of
the
CWA
(
i.
e.,
BPT,
BCT,
BAT,
NSPS).
These
are
often
referred
to
as
"
indicator"
pollutants.
For
example,
EPA
may
choose
to
regulate
only
one
of
several
metal
pollutants
that
are
present
in
the
effluent
from
an
industrial
category;
however,
compliance
with
the
ELG
(
i.
e.,
implementation
of
technology­
based
controls)
will
ensure
that
all
metals
present
in
the
discharge
are
adequately
treated.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
55
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
EPA
produces
a
number
of
documents
that
will
prove
useful
to
permit
writers
responsible
for
applying
ELGs
in
permits.
Most
notable
are
the
"
Development
Documents,"
prepared
by
EPA
for
every
industrial
category
with
ELGs.
Development
Documents
are
produced
by
EPA
as
part
of
the
development
of
ELGs
and
provide
a
detailed
overview
of
the
limitations
development
process,
including
decisions
made
on
applicability
of
the
regulations
to
various
process
operations.

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

°
Categorization
 
Determination
of
the
proper
category
and
subcategory
of
the
facility
and
proper
use
of
the
guidelines
applicable
to
the
category
or
subcategory
under
consideration
°
Multiple
Products
or
Multiple
Categories
 
Classification
of
plants
that
fall
under
more
than
one
subcategory
and/
or
have
multiple
products
with
multiple
measures
of
production
°
Production/
Flow­
based
Limitations
 
Determination
of
the
appropriate
measure
of
production
or
flow
°
Tiered
Permit
Limits
 
Use
of
alternate
limits
for
varying
production
and
flow
scenarios
°
Mass
Versus
Concentration
Limits
 
Considerations
in
the
application
of
mass
versus
concentration
limits.

Each
of
these
considerations
is
discussed
further
below.

Once
the
appropriate
ELGs
have
been
identified,
application
of
the
limitations
is
relatively
straightforward
since
it
involves
the
application
of
a
guideline
that
has
already
been
technically
derived
(
and
sometimes
litigated).
Implementation
of
ELGs
does
require
familiarity
with
several
sources
of
information,
particularly
the
CFR
and
the
Federal
Register
(
FR).
As
an
example,
two
pages
of
the
ELGs
for
the
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
industrial
category
are
presented
as
Exhibit
5­
3.

56
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
EXHIBIT
5­
3
ELGs
for
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
57
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
EXHIBIT
5­
3
ELGs
for
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
(
continued)

58
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
Categorization
To
properly
use
and
apply
ELGs,
the
permit
writer
must
first
determine
which
industrial
category(
s)
applies
to
the
facility
being
permitted.
In
determining
the
appropriate
category(
s)
into
which
a
facility
falls,
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
code
is
often
very
helpful.
SIC
codes
were
developed
and
are
maintained
by
the
Federal
government
as
a
way
to
classify
establishments
by
type
of
activity
for
comparing
economic
and
other
types
of
facility­
specific
data.
A
listing
of
SIC
codes
corresponding
with
ELG
categories
is
provided
in
Appendix
C
and
is
useful
for
determining
applicable
industrial
categories.

Item
V­
II
of
NPDES
Application
Form
l
requires
that
the
applicant
provide
the
SIC
code
for
the
activity
covered
by
the
permit
application.
In
some
instances,
the
SIC
code
will
identify
both
the
industrial
category
and
the
subcategory
of
a
particular
facility.
Often,
the
SIC
code
will
identify
the
appropriate
industrial
category,
but
may
not
necessarily
identify
the
subcategory.

Example:

A
primary
smelter
of
copper,
SIC
code
3331,
falls
under
the
Nonferrous
Metals
Manufacturing
category
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
421.
In
this
particular
case,
SIC
code
3331
also
clearly
identifies
the
facility
in
the
Copper
Smelting
Subcategory.

Example:

A
facility
that
manufactures
acrylic
acids
and
acrylic
acid
esters
(
SIC
code
2869)
can
easily
be
classified
as
subject
to
the
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF)
category
based
on
its
SIC
code;
however,
determination
of
the
applicable
subcategory
requires
additional
effort.
In
this
example,
the
permit
writer
can
determine
from
a
review
of
the
industrial
categorization
discussion
in
the
Development
Document
for
the
OCPSF
industry
that
facilities
performing
these
manufacturing
operations
are
subject
to
Subpart
G
(
bulk
organic
chemicals).

Although
SIC
codes
provide
a
helpful
starting
point
for
categorizing
a
facility,

the
permit
writer
should
be
cautious
of
relying
exclusively
on
SIC
codes
for
determining
the
appropriate
industrial
category.
SIC
codes
were
not
developed
based
on
EPA's
industrial
classification
scheme,
or
vice
versa,
and,
therefore,
may
not
always
correspond
exactly
with
the
categorization
process.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
more
than
one
SIC
code
may
apply
to
a
facility.
EPA's
Development
Documents,

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
59
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
provide
detailed
information
on
the
applicability
of
the
regulations
to
specific
types
of
facilities
and
are
useful
sources
of
information
when
categorizing
a
facility.
Similarly,

FR
notices
of
the
promulgated
ELGs
provide
additional
insight
into
applicability
of
the
guideline
to
various
types
of
facilities.

When
determining
applicable
ELGs,
it
is
best
to
identify
the
categories
first,
and
then,
through
a
careful
analysis
of
plant
operations,
determine
the
subcategories.
The
determination
of
applicable
categories
can
be
accomplished
by
quickly
classifying
the
categories
as
"
not
applicable"
or
"
potentially
applicable."

Example:

If
a
brewery
is
under
consideration,
the
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
category
would
obviously
not
be
applicable
but
Organic
Chemicals
might
be,
depending
on
the
extent
of
recovery
and
processing
of
byproducts.
A
careful
analysis
of
the
production
of
the
plant
and
comparison
to
the
subcategories
under
Organic
Chemicals
would
establish
which,
if
any,
of
the
subcategories
are
applicable.

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

Example:

An
integrated
washing
machine
producer
(
SIC
code
3633)
would
be
categorized
in
the
Household
Laundry
Equipment
category
(
as
specified
under
the
SIC
code
system).
However,
depending
on
the
activities
occurring
at
the
facility,
it
may
also
fall
under
the
Porcelain
Enameling,
Metal
Finishing,
or
Plastic
Molding
and
Forming
categories
for
purposes
of
regulation
under
effluent
guidelines.

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

Multiple
Products
or
Multiple
Categories
There
are
instances
when
one
facility
produces
multiple
products,
or
whose
production
process
is
covered
by
multiple
categories
and
subcategories.
In
these
cases,
the
permit
writer
must
examine
the
applicable
guidelines
closely
to
ensure
that
(
1)
one
guideline
does
not
supersede
another,
and
(
2)
the
guidelines
are
properly
60
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
applied.
For
example,
as
presented
in
Exhibit
5­
4,
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
for
the
OCPSF
ELGs
(
52
FR
42523)
identified
numerous
circumstances
where
the
OCPSF
regulations
are
superseded
by
existing
ELGs
for
other
industrial
categories.

When
a
facility
is
subject
to
multiple
effluent
guidelines,
the
permit
writer
must
apply
each
of
the
effluent
guidelines
in
deriving
the
technology­
based
effluent
limits
for
the
particular
facility.
If
all
wastewaters
regulated
by
effluent
guidelines
are
combined
prior
to
treatment
and
discharge
to
navigable
waters,
then
the
permit
writer
could
simply
combine
the
allowable
pollutant
loadings
from
each
effluent
guideline
to
arrive
at
a
single
technology­
based
effluent
limit
for
the
facility
(
i.
e.,
a
"
building
block"

approach).

Circumstances
will
also
arise
when
an
effluent
guideline
for
one
subcategory
regulates
a
different
set
of
pollutants
than
the
effluent
guidelines
applicable
to
another
subcategory.
If
all
regulated
wastestreams
are
combined,
there
are
two
approaches
to
ensure
proper
application
of
the
effluent
guidelines:

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

°
If
one
wastestream
that
does
not
contain
a
pollutant
is
combined
with
another
wastestream
that
has
applicable
effluent
guidelines
for
the
pollutant,
the
permit
writer
must
ensure
that
the
non­
regulated
wastestream
does
not
dilute
the
regulated
wastestream
to
the
point
where
the
pollutant
is
not
analytically
detectable.
If
this
circumstance
occurs,
then
the
permit
writer
will
most
likely
need
to
establish
internal
outfalls,
as
allowed
under
40
CFR
§
122.45(
h).

Effluent
guidelines
may
also
specify
inconsistent
limit
expressions
that
will
have
to
be
adjusted.
For
example,
effluent
guidelines
for
one
category
(
e.
g.,
porcelain
enameling)
may
contain
limits
with
a
daily
maximum
limit,
while
effluent
guidelines
for
another
category
(
e.
g.,
electroplating)
sets
a
4­
day
average
limit
for
the
same
pollutant.
In
this
case,
both
ELGs
must
be
applied
in
the
permit.
If
this
situation
arises,
a
permit
writer
has
several
alternatives
such
as:

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
61
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
EXHIBIT
5­
4
OCPSF
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
62
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
°
Place
both
limits
in
the
permit
(
i.
e.,
both
the
daily
maximum
and
4­
day
average)

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

Example
1:

A
facility
with
a
newly
constructed
metal
plating
production
line
is
added
to
a
facility
with
an
existing
metal
plating
production
line.
Wastewater
from
both
of
these
lines
is
commingled
prior
to
treatment,
treated,
and
then
discharged.
In
this
situation,
the
combination
of
the
NSPS
(
for
the
new
line)
and
BAT/
BCT
standards
(
for
the
older
line)
would
be
used
to
derive
a
limitation.

Example
2:

An
integrated
lamp
maker
conducts
copper
forming,
aluminum
forming,
metal
finishing,
and
porcelain
enameling
processes
with
wastewater
combined
prior
to
treatment
and
discharge.
In
this
situation,
the
appropriate
effluent
guidelines
for
these
categories
must
be
applied
to
each
waste
stream
and
combined
when
developing
limitations.

Production/
Flow­
Based
Limitations
Most
ELGs
are
expressed
in
terms
of
allowable
pollutant
discharge
per
unit
of
production
(
or
some
other
measure
of
production)
or
are
based
on
wastewater
flow
rates.
In
general,
production/
flow­
based
standards
are
developed
for
industries
that
incorporate
flow
reduction
practices,
and
EPA
considers
this
in
the
ELG
development
process.
This
methodology
forces
permittees
to
implement
comparable
measures
to
comply
with
the
limitations.
To
determine
permit
limits,
and
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
§
122.45(
b),
these
standards
are
multiplied
by
a
reasonable
measure
of
the
facility's
actual
production/
flow
rate
(
i.
e.,
not
the
design
production
or
flow
rate).
Thus,
it
is
necessary
for
the
permit
writer
to
determine
the
facility's
actual
production
or
flow,
based
on
information
supplied
by
the
facility
in
the
permit
application.

The
ideal
situation
for
the
application
of
ELGs
is
where
production
or
flow
is
constant
from
day­
to­
day
and
month­
to­
month.
Production
or
flow
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
the
limitations
would
then
be
the
average
rate.
In
actuality,
production
or
flow
rates
are
not
as
constant
as
this
ideal
situation.
They
vary
based
on
factors
such
as
the
market
demand,
maintenance,
product
changes,
down
times,
breakdowns,
and
facility
modifications.
As
such,
the
production
or
flow
rate
of
a
facility
will
vary
with
time.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
63
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
To
apply
production/
flow­
based
ELGs
to
a
facility
with
varying
production
or
flow
rates,
the
permit
writer
should
determine
a
single
estimate
of
the
long­
term
average
rate
that
is
expected
to
exist
during
the
term
of
the
permit
being
prepared.
It
is
recommended
that
the
permit
writer
establish
this
average
from
the
past
5
years
of
facility
data.
This
single
value
is
then
multiplied
by
the
ELGs
to
obtain
permit
limits.

In
certain
instances,
the
permit
writer
may
find
that
fewer
than
5
years
of
data
may
better
represent
conditions
that
are
anticipated
for
the
next
5
years.
This
would
be
the
case
for
a
facility
that
has
undergone
major
renovations
that
would
impact
production
or
flow;
making
use
of
data
prior
to
this
construction
inappropriate
to
model
future
process
options.

The
objective
in
determining
a
production
or
flow
estimate
for
a
facility
is
to
develop
a
single
estimate
of
the
long­
term
average
production
rate
(
in
terms
of
mass
of
product
per
day
or
volume
of
process
wastewater
per
day),
which
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
prevail
during
the
next
term
of
the
permit.
The
following
example
illustrates
the
proper
application
of
production­
based
guidelines:

Example:

Company
A
has
produced
331,000
tons,
301,500
tons,
361,500
tons,
332,000
tons,
and
331,500
tons
per
year
for
the
previous
5
years
operating
255
days
per
year.
What
would
be
a
reasonable
measure
of
production
for
permitting
purposes?
Assuming
that
pollutant
X
has
an
effluent
limitation
guideline
of
0.1
lbs/
1,000
lbs
for
the
monthly
average
and
0.15
lbs/
1,000
lbs
for
the
daily
maximum,
what
would
be
the
resulting
effluent
limitations?

Discussion:

The
use
of
the
long­
term
average
production
(
i.
e.,
average
production
over
past
5
years
=
331,500
tons
per
year)
would
be
an
appropriate
and
reasonable
measure
of
production,
if
this
figure
represents
the
actual
production
expected
to
occur
over
the
next
term
of
the
permit.
Also,
in
evaluating
these
gross
production
figures,
the
number
of
production
days
must
be
considered.
If
the
number
of
production
days
per
year
is
not
comparable,
the
numbers
must
be
converted
to
production
per
day
before
they
may
be
compared.
To
convert
from
the
annual
production
rate
to
average
daily
rate,
the
annual
production
rate
is
divided
by
the
number
of
production
days
per
year.
To
determine
the
number
of
production
days,
the
total
number
of
normally
scheduled
nonproduction
days
are
subtracted
from
the
total
days
in
a
year.

If
Company
A
normally
has
255
production
days
per
year,
the
annual
production
rate
of
331,500
tons
per
year
would
yield
an
average
daily
rate
of
1,300
tons
per
day.

Monthly
average
limit:
1,300
tons/
day
x
2,000
lbs/
ton
x
0.10
lbs/
1,000
lbs
=
260
lbs/
day
Daily
maximum
limit:
1,300
tons/
day
x
2,000
lbs/
ton
x
0.15
lbs/
1,000
lbs
=
390
lbs/
day
64
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
In
the
example
above,
the
average
production
rate
during
the
last
5
years
was
used
as
the
estimate
of
production.
This
average
rate
is
appropriate
when
production
is
not
expected
to
change
significantly
during
the
permit
term.
However,
if
historical
trends,
market
forces,
or
company
plans
indicate
that
a
different
level
of
production
will
prevail
during
the
permit
term,
a
different
basis
for
estimating
production
should
be
used.

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

Example:

Plant
B
produced
approximately
40
tons
per
day
of
product
during
spring
and
summer
months
(
i.
e.,
March
through
August)
and
280
tons
per
day
during
fall
and
winter
months
during
the
previous
5
years.
Production
during
the
fall
and
winter
months
are
significantly
higher
than
during
the
off­
season
and
the
permittee
has
made
a
plausible
argument
that
production
is
expected
to
continue
at
that
level.
The
guideline
for
pollutant
X
is
0.08
lbs/
1,000
lbs
for
the
monthly
average
and
0.14
lbs/
1,000
lbs
for
the
daily
maximum.
What
are
the
tiered
effluent
limitations?

Discussion:

The
first
tier
or
lower
limits
would
be
based
on
a
production
rate
of
40
tons
per
day.
These
limits
would
apply
between
March
and
August.

Monthly
average
limit:
40
tons/
day
x
2,000
lbs/
ton
x
0.08
lbs/
1,000
lbs
=
6.4
lbs/
day
Daily
maximum
limit:
40
tons/
day
x
2,000
lbs/
ton
x
0.14
lbs/
1,000
lbs
=
11.2
lbs/
day
The
second
tier
or
higher
limits
would
be
based
on
a
production
rate
of
280
tons
per
day.
These
limits
would
apply
between
September
and
February.

Monthly
average
limit:
280
tons/
day
x
2,000
lbs/
ton
x
0.08
lbs/
1,000
lbs
=
44.8
lbs/
day
Daily
maximum
limit:
280
tons/
day
x
2,000
lbs/
ton
x
0.14
lbs/
1,000
lbs
=
78.4
lbs/
day
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
65
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Tiered
permits
with
alternate
limits
should
be
used
only
after
careful
consideration
of
production
data
and
only
when
a
substantial
increase
or
decrease
in
production
is
likely
to
occur.
In
the
example
above,
the
lower
limits
would
be
in
effect
when
production
was
at
"
low"
levels.
During
periods
of
significantly
higher
production,

the
higher
limits
would
be
in
effect.
In
addition,
alternate
limits
may
also
be
appropriate
in
the
case
of
special
processes
or
product
lines.
The
thresholds,

measures
of
production,
and
special
reporting
requirements
must
be
detailed
in
the
permit.
Special
reporting
requirements
include
provisions
such
as:

°
The
permittee
notifying
the
permitting
authority
at
least
two
business
days
prior
to
the
month
they
expect
to
be
operating
at
a
higher
level
of
production
and
the
duration
this
level
of
production
is
expected
to
continue
°
The
permittee
reporting,
in
the
discharge
monitoring
report,
the
level
of
production
and
the
limitation
and
standards
applicable
to
that
level.

Mass
Versus
Concentration
Limits
The
regulations
at
40
CFR
§
122.45(
f)(
1)
require
that
all
permit
limits,
standards,

or
prohibitions
be
expressed
in
terms
of
mass
units
(
e.
g.,
pounds,
kilograms,
grams)

except
under
the
following
conditions:

1)
For
pH,
temperature,
radiation,
or
other
pollutants
that
cannot
appropriately
be
addressed
by
mass
limits;

2)
When
applicable
standards
and
limitations
are
expressed
in
terms
of
other
units
of
measurement;
or
3)
If
in
establishing
technology­
based
permit
limitations
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
limitations
based
on
mass
are
infeasible
because
the
mass
or
pollutant
cannot
be
related
to
a
measure
of
production.
The
limitations,
however,
must
ensure
that
dilution
will
not
be
used
as
a
substitute
for
treatment.

While
the
regulations
require
that
limitations
be
expressed
in
terms
of
mass,
a
provision
is
included
at
40
CFR
§
122.45(
f)(
2)
that
allows
that
permit
writer,
at
his
or
her
discretion,
to
express
limits
in
additional
units
(
e.
g.,
concentration
units).
Where
limits
are
expressed
in
more
than
one
unit,
the
permittee
must
comply
with
both.

As
provided
by
the
regulations,
the
permit
writer
may
determine
that
expressing
limits
in
more
than
one
unit
is
appropriate
under
certain
circumstances.
For
example,

66
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
expressing
limitations
in
terms
of
concentration
as
well
as
mass
encourages
the
proper
operation
of
a
treatment
facility
at
all
times.
In
the
absence
of
concentration
limits,
a
permittee
would
be
able
to
increase
its
effluent
concentration
(
i.
e.,
reduce
its
level
of
treatment)
during
low
flow
periods
and
still
meet
its
mass­
based
effluent
limits.

Concentration
limits
discourage
the
reduction
in
treatment
efficiency
during
low
flow
periods,
and
require
proper
operation
of
treatment
units
at
all
times.

The
derivation
of
concentration
limits
should
be
based
on
evaluating
historical
monitoring
data
and
using
engineering
judgment
to
be
sure
they
are
reasonable.
In
certain
situations,
the
use
of
concentration
limits
may
not
be
appropriate
since
they
may
discourage
the
use
of
innovative
techniques,
such
as
water
conservation
by
the
permittee.
For
example,
if
a
facility
had
a
history
of
providing
efficient
treatment
of
its
wastewater
and
also
wished
to
practice
water
conservation,
inclusion
of
concentration
limits
would
not
be
appropriate
(
i.
e.,
concentration
limits
would
prohibit
decreases
in
flow
that
would
concurrently
result
in
an
increase
in
pollutant
concentration).
To
summarize,
the
applicability
of
concentration
limits
should
be
a
case­
by­
case
determination
based
upon
the
professional
judgment
of
the
permit
writer.

It
should
be
noted
that
the
long­
term
average
flow
should
be
used
to
calculate
both
the
monthly
average
and
daily
maximum
concentrations.
The
use
of
the
longterm
average
flow
is
most
appropriate
for
the
calculation
of
concentration
limits
because
it
will
reflect
the
range
of
concentrations
that
could
be
expected
in
a
well
operated
plant.
The
use
of
the
maximum
daily
flow
is
not
appropriate
to
determine
concentration
limits
from
the
mass
limitations
because
it
will
reduce
the
concentration
below
the
value
which
could
be
expected
in
a
well
operated
plant.
Alternatively,
use
of
the
lowest
flow
value
will
increase
the
concentration
limit
to
levels
above
what
would
be
expected
in
a
well
operated
plant.

Example
1:

An
industrial
facility
(
leather
tanner)
is
subject
to
effluent
limitations
guidelines
based
on
its
rate
of
production.
The
permit
writer
calculates
the
applicable
mass­
based
limits
based
on
the
long­
term
production
rate
at
the
facility
and
incorporates
the
mass
limits
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
122.45(
f)(
1).

In
reviewing
the
past
inspection
records
for
the
facility,
the
permit
writer
notes
that
while
the
facility
is
generally
in
compliance
with
its
mass
limits,
the
effluent
flow
and
concentration
vary
widely.
To
ensure
that
the
treatment
unit
is
operated
properly
at
all
times,
the
permit
writer
determines
that
concentrationbased
limits
are
also
appropriate.
The
permit
writer
consults
the
EPA
Development
Document
for
the
leather
tanning
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
bases
the
concentration­
based
limits
on
the
demonstrated
performance
of
the
treatment
technology
upon
which
the
effluent
guidelines
were
based.
The
concentration­
based
limits
are
then
incorporated
in
the
permit
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
122.45(
f)(
2).

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
67
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Example
2:

For
Company
A,
the
mass
limits
for
pollutant
X
have
been
set
at
260
lbs/
day
and
390
lbs/
day
monthly
average
and
daily
maximum,
respectively.
What
are
the
monthly
average
concentration
limitations
in
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
l)
using
both
an
average
flow
of
0.9
mgd
and
the
low
flow
of
0.6
mgd?
Note:
8.34
is
a
conversion
factor
with
the
units
(
lbs/
day)/(
mgd)(
mg/
l).

Discussion:

Monthly
average
limit
(
based
on
average
flow):
260
lbs/
day/(
8.34
x
0.9
mgd)
=
35
mg/
l
Monthly
average
limit
(
based
on
low
flow):
260
lbs/
day/(
8.34
x
0.6
mgd)
=
52
mg/
l
This
is
almost
150
percent
more
than
the
concentration
during
average
flow!

In
determining
applicable
effluent
concentration
limitations,
the
monthly
average
and
daily
maximum
mass
limits
divided
by
the
average
flow
will
provide
appropriate
concentrations.

Monthly
average
limit:
260
lbs/
day/(
8.34
x
0.9
mgd)
=
35
mg/
l
Daily
maximum
limit:
390
lbs/
day/(
8.34
x
0.9
mgd)
=
52
mg/
l
5.1.4
Best
Professional
Judgment
Permit
Limits
Best
Professional
Judgment
(
BPJ)­
based
limits
are
technology­
based
limits
derived
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
non­
municipal
(
industrial)
facilities.
BPJ
limits
are
established
in
cases
where
ELGs
are
not
available
for,
or
do
not
regulate,
a
particular
pollutant
of
concern.
BPJ
is
defined
as
the
highest
quality
technical
opinion
developed
by
a
permit
writer
after
consideration
of
all
reasonably
available
and
pertinent
data
or
information
that
forms
the
basis
for
the
terms
and
conditions
of
a
NPDES
permit.

The
authority
for
BPJ
is
contained
in
Section
402(
a)(
1)
of
the
CWA,
which
authorizes
the
EPA
Administrator
to
issue
a
permit
containing
"
such
conditions
as
the
Administrator
determines
are
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
this
Act"
prior
to
taking
the
necessary
implementing
actions,
such
as
the
establishment
of
ELGs.

During
the
first
round
of
NPDES
permits
in
the
early­
to­
mid­
1970s,
a
majority
of
permits
were
based
on
the
authority
of
Section
402(
a)(
1)
of
the
CWA.
These
first
round
so­
called
best
engineering
judgment
permits
were
drafted
because
effluent
guidelines
were
not
available
for
many
industries.
As
effluent
guidelines
began
to
be
promulgated,
permit
writers
had
to
rely
less
on
their
best
engineering
judgment
and
could
apply
the
ELGs
in
permits.
As
the
implementation
of
the
age
of
toxic
pollutant
68
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
control
continues,
the
use
of
BPJ
conditions
in
permits
has
again
become
more
common.
However,
the
statutory
deadline
for
compliance
with
technology­
based
effluent
limits
(
including
BPJ­
based
pollutant
limits)
was
March
31,
1989.
Therefore,

compliance
schedules
cannot
be
placed
in
permits
to
allow
for
extensions
in
meeting
BPJ
pollutant
limits.

BPJ
has
proven
to
be
a
valuable
tool
for
NPDES
permit
writers
over
the
years.

Because
it
is
so
broad
in
scope,
BPJ
allows
the
permit
writer
considerable
flexibility
in
establishing
permit
terms
and
conditions.
Inherent
in
this
flexibility,
however,
is
the
burden
on
the
permit
writer
to
show
that
the
BPJ
is
reasonable
and
based
on
sound
engineering
analysis.
If
this
evaluation
of
reasonableness
does
not
exist,
the
BPJ
condition
is
vulnerable
to
a
challenge
by
the
permittee.
Therefore,
the
need
for
and
derivation
of
the
permit
condition,
and
the
basis
for
its
establishment,
should
be
clearly
defined
and
documented.
References
used
to
determine
the
BPJ
condition
should
be
identified.
In
short,
the
rationale
for
a
BPJ
permit
must
be
carefully
drafted
to
withstand
the
scrutiny
of
not
only
the
permittee,
but
also
the
public
and,
ultimately,
an
administrative
law
judge.

Establishment
of
BPJ
Permit
Limits
The
NPDES
regulations
in
40
CFR
§
125.3
state
that
permits
developed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
Section
402(
a)(
1)
of
the
CWA
must
consider
(
1)
the
appropriate
technology
for
the
category
class
of
point
sources
of
which
the
applicant
is
a
member,
based
on
all
available
information,
and
(
2)
any
unique
factors
relating
to
the
applicant.
To
set
BPJ
limits,
a
permit
writer
must
first
determine
a
need
for
additional
controls
beyond
existing
ELGs.
The
need
for
additional
controls
may
be
the
result
of
the
facility
not
falling
under
any
of
the
categories
for
which
ELGs
exist
(
e.
g.,

barrel
reclaimers,
transportation
equipment
cleaning
facilities,
or
industrial
laundries)
or
discharging
pollutants
of
concern
that
are
not
directly
or
indirectly
addressed
by
the
development
of
the
ELGs
(
e.
g.,
a
pharmaceutical
manufacturer
or
a
petroleum
refiner
may
discharge
elevated
levels
of
organic
solvents
for
which
category­
specific
guidelines
do
not
exist).
It
should
be
noted
that
prior
to
establishing
BPJ­
based
limits
for
a
pollutant
not
regulated
in
an
effluent
guideline,
the
permit
writer
should
ensure
that
the
pollutant
was
not
considered
by
EPA
while
developing
the
ELGs
(
i.
e.,

BPJbased
effluent
limits
are
not
required
for
pollutants
that
were
considered
by
EPA
for
regulation
under
the
effluent
guidelines,
but
for
which
EPA
determined
that
no
ELG
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
69
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
was
necessary).
Information
contained
in
the
appropriate
"
Development
Document"

should
assist
permit
writers
in
making
this
determination.

In
setting
BPJ
limitations,
the
permit
writer
must
consider
several
specific
factors
as
they
appear
in
40
CFR
§
125.3(
d).
These
factors,
which
are
enumerated
below,
are
the
same
factors
required
to
be
considered
by
EPA
in
the
development
of
ELGs
and,
therefore,
are
often
referred
to
as
the
Section
304(
b)
factors:

°
For
BPT
requirements:

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

°
For
BCT
requirements:

 
All
items
in
the
BPT
requirements
indicated
by
an
asterisk
(*)
above
 
The
reasonableness
of
the
relationship
between
the
costs
of
attaining
a
reduction
in
effluent
and
the
effluent
reduction
benefits
derived
 
The
comparison
of
the
cost
and
level
of
reduction
of
such
pollutants
from
the
discharge
of
POTWs
to
the
cost
and
level
of
reduction
of
such
pollutants
from
a
class
or
category
of
industrial
sources
°
For
BAT
requirements:

 
All
items
in
the
BPT
requirements
indicated
by
an
asterisk
(*)
above
 
The
cost
of
achieving
such
effluent
reduction.

A
permit
writer
must
consider
each
of
these
factors
in
establishing
BPJ­
based
conditions
in
permits.
Since
BPJ
contains
an
element
of
judgment
or
educated
opinion,
a
permit
writer
with
the
proper
tools
should
be
able
to
establish
BPJ
conditions
in
permits
that
are
both
technically
sound
and
reasonable.

A
technically
sound
and
reasonable
permit
is
not
likely
to
be
successfully
challenged
by
the
permittee
or
a
third
party.
In
this
context,
"
technically
sound
permit
conditions"
means
that
the
conditions
are
achievable
with
existing
technology.

70
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
"
Reasonable"
means
that
the
conditions
are
achievable
at
a
cost
that
the
facility
can
afford.
Historically,
some
of
the
other
factors,
such
as
age,
process
employed
and
non­
water
quality
impacts
have
assumed
lesser
importance
than
the
technical
and
economic
feasibility
evaluations.

BPJ
Permitting
Tools
and
References
Permit
writers
can
develop
BPJ
limits
using
one
of
two
different
methods.
A
permit
writer
can
either
transfer
numerical
limitations
from
an
existing
source
such
as
from
a
similar
NPDES
permit
or
an
existing
ELG,
or
derive
new
numerical
limitations.

Numerous
tools
and
references
for
BPJ
permit
writing
exist.
As
one
gains
experience
drafting
BPJ
permits,
it
is
common
practice
to
rely
on
some
references
more
than
others.
Exhibit
5­
5
lists
references
and
provides
some
examples
for
selected
BPJ
data
sources
that
have
proven
useful
to
permit
writers
over
the
years.

Most
of
the
tools
and
references
listed
in
Exhibit
5­
5
can
be
used
to
derive
new
BPJ­
based
permit
limits.
They
provide
information
related
to
the
expected
performance
of
wastewater
treatment
systems.
For
example,
the
Treatability
Manual
4
and
associated
data
base
provides
treatability
information
for
over
1,400
pollutants.

Information
collected
for
use
in
developing
effluent
guidelines
and
standards
can
also
provide
treatability
data
for
a
significant
number
of
pollutants
and
for
a
variety
of
types
of
industrial
wastewaters.
The
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control
5
provides
extensive
information
and
guidance
related
to
the
statistical
considerations
when
establishing
effluent
limits.

Since
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
can
also
be
used
by
permit
writers
as
the
basis
for
effluent
limits,
the
Guidance
Manual
for
Developing
Best
Management
Practices
6
can
be
used
by
permit
writers
to
identify
potentially
applicable
BMPs
that
could
be
used
for
the
facility
to
be
permitted.
In
addition,
Storm
Water
Management
4USEPA
(
1980).
Treatability
Manual,
Volumes
I
­
V.
EPA­
600/
8­
80­
042a­
e.
Office
of
Research
and
Development.

5USEPA
(
1991).
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control.
EPA­
505/
2­
90­
001.
Office
of
Water
Enforcement
and
Permits.

6USEPA
(
1993).
Guidance
Manual
for
Developing
Best
Management
Practices.
(
BMPs).
EPA­
833­
B­
93­
004.
Office
of
Water.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
71
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
for
Industrial
Activities:
Developing
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
and
Best
Management
EXHIBIT
5­
5
BPJ
Permitting
Tools
°
Abstracts
of
Industrial
NPDES
Permits
°
Treatability
Manual
and
Data
Base
°
NPDES
Best
Management
Practices
Guidance
Document
°
Guidance
Manual
for
Developing
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs).
EPA
833­
B­
93­
004.
(
USEPA,
1993)
Office
of
Water
and
Storm
Water
Management
for
Industrial
Activities:
Developing
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
and
Best
Management
Practices.
EPA
832­
R­
92­
006.
(
USEPA,
1992)
Office
of
Water.

°
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
Development
of
Water
Quality­
based
Permit
Toxic
Control
°
Workbook
for
Determining
Economic
Achievability
for
NPDES
Permits
°
National
Environmental
Investigation
Center
reports
on
specific
facilities
°
Toxicity
reduction
evaluations
for
selected
industries
°
Industry
experts
within
EPA
Headquarters,
Regions,
and
States
°
Effluent
guidelines
development
information
 
CWA
Section
308
questionnaires
 
Screening
and
verification
data
 
Development
documents
 
Contractor's
reports
 
Proposed
regulations
 
Project
Officers
°
Permit
Compliance
System
data
°
Permit/
compliance
file
information
 
Previous
NPDES
application
forms
 
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
 
Compliance
Inspection
reports
°
Other
media
permit
files
(
e.
g.,
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
permit
applications
and
Spill
Prevention
Countermeasure
and
Control
(
SPCC)
plans)

°
Literature
(
e.
g.,
technical
journals
and
books).

Practices
7
can
be
used
by
permit
writers
responsible
for
establishing
BPJ
permit
limits
for
storm
water
discharges.

7USEPA
(
1992).
Storm
Water
Management
for
Industrial
Activities:
Developing
Pollution
Prevention
Plans
and
Best
Management
Practices.
EPA
832­
R­
92­
006.
Office
of
Water.

72
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
To
assist
permit
writers
in
identifying
other
NPDES
permits
from
which
technology­
based
effluent
limits
can
be
transferred,
EPA
has
developed
the
NPDES
Industrial
Permit
Abstracts
8.
The
abstracts
are
a
compilation
of
NPDES
permits
issued
by
authorized
State
agencies
and
EPA
Regional
offices
to
a
variety
of
nonmunicipal
dischargers.
The
abstracts
assist
permit
writers
by
providing
rapid
access
to
permit
information
in
a
standardized,
cross­
referenced
and
easy­
to­
read
format.

As
previously
discussed,
permit
writers
must
consider
the
costs
to
comply
when
establishing
BPJ
permit
limits
for
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants.
To
assist
permit
writers
in
determining
whether
the
estimated
costs
are
reasonable
for
the
facility
to
be
permitted,
a
draft
document,
Workbook
for
Determining
Economic
Achievability
for
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Permits
9,
has
been
developed.
This
guidance
document
provides
a
step­
by­
step
procedure
for
permit
writers
to
determine
the
economic
achievability
of
BPJ
effluent
limits.

BPJ
Statistical
Considerations
The
quality
of
the
effluent
from
a
treatment
facility
will
normally
vary
over
time.

If
BOD
5
data
for
a
typical
treatment
plant
are
plotted
against
time,
the
day­
to­
day
variations
of
effluent
concentrations
can
be
seen.
Some
of
this
behavior
can
be
described
by
constructing
a
frequency­
concentration
plot.
From
this
plot,
one
can
see
that
for
most
of
the
time,
BOD
5
concentrations
are
near
some
average
value.
Any
treatment
system
can
be
described
using
the
mean
concentration
of
the
parameter
of
interest
(
i.
e.,
the
long­
term
average)
and
the
variance
(
or
coefficient
of
variation)
and
by
assuming
a
particular
statistical
distribution
(
usually
lognormal).

Permit
limits
are
generally
set
at
the
upper
bounds
of
acceptable
performance.

As
required
at
40
CFR
§
122.45(
d),
two
expressions
of
permit
limits
are
required
 
an
average
monthly
limit
and
a
maximum
daily
limit.
The
use
of
average
and
maximum
limits
can
vary
depending
on
the
effluent
guidelines
and
water
quality
criteria
that
are
consulted.
Instantaneous
maximums,
daily
averages
and
daily
maximums,
weekly
averages,
and
monthly
averages
are
all
commonly
used
limitation
expressions.

8USEPA
(
1993).
NPDES
Industrial
Permit
Abstracts
1993.
EPA­
833/
B­
93­
005.
Office
of
Water.

9USEPA
(
1982).
Workbook
for
Determining
Economic
Achievability
for
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Permits
(
DRAFT).
Permits
Division
Prepared
by
Putnam,
Wayes
&
Bartlett,
Inc.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
73
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Generally,
the
definitions
are
consistent
with
those
set
forth
in
the
Glossary
of
this
manual.

If
permit
limits
are
set
too
lenient
relative
to
the
long­
term
average,
a
discharger
not
complying
with
expected
performance
will
not
exceed
the
limits.
If
permit
limits
are
set
too
stringently,
a
discharger
that
is
complying
with
expected
performance
may
frequently
exceed
the
limits.
It
is
important
to
note
that
statistical
variability
is
already
built
in
with
respect
to
the
ELGs,
and
the
permit
writer
may
not
perform
a
separate
evaluation
in
those
cases
where
a
permit
limitation
is
derived
from
a
guideline.

When
developing
a
BPJ
limit,
permit
writers
can
use
an
approach
consistent
with
EPA's
ELG
statistical
approach.
Specifically,
the
daily
maximum
limitation
can
be
calculated
by
multiplying
the
long­
term
average
by
a
daily
variability
factor.
The
monthly
maximum
limitation
can
be
calculated
similarly
except
that
the
variability
factor
corresponds
to
the
distribution
of
monthly
averages
instead
of
daily
concentration
measurements.

The
daily
variability
factor
is
a
statistical
entity
defined
as
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
99th
percentile
of
a
distribution
of
daily
values
divided
by
the
mean
of
the
distribution.
Similarly,
the
monthly
variability
factor
is
typically
defined
as
the
estimated
95th
percentile
of
the
distribution
of
4­
day
averages
divided
by
the
mean
of
the
monthly
averages.

A
modified
delta­
lognormal
distribution
can
be
fit
to
concentration
data.

Variability
factors
can
then
be
computed
for
a
facility
distribution.
The
modified
deltalognormal
distribution
models
the
data
as
a
mixture
of
non­
detect
observations
and
measured
values.
This
distribution
is
often
selected
because
the
data
for
most
analytes
consists
of
a
mixture
of
measured
values
and
non­
detects.
The
modified
delta­
lognormal
distribution
assumes
that
all
non­
detects
have
a
value
equal
to
the
detection
limit
and
that
the
detected
values
follow
a
lognormal
distribution.

For
more
details
on
EPA's
use
of
statistical
methods
for
developing
ELGs,
refer
to
Development
Document
for
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
the
74
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics
and
Synthetic
Fibers
Point
Source
Category
10
or
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control
11.

5.2
Application
of
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limitations
for
Municipal
Dischargers
The
largest
category
of
dischargers
requiring
individual
NPDES
permits
is
municipal
POTWs.
Similar
to
its
approach
for
controlling
the
discharges
from
industrial
sources,
the
1972
CWA
required
POTWs
to
meet
performance­
based
requirements
based
on
available
wastewater
treatment
technology.
Section
301
of
the
CWA
established
a
required
performance
level,
referred
to
as
"
secondary
treatment,"

that
all
POTWs
were
required
to
meet
by
July
1,
1977.

More
specifically,
Section
301(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
the
CWA
requires
that
EPA
develop
secondary
treatment
standards
for
POTWs
as
defined
in
Section
304(
d)(
1)
of
the
Act.

Based
on
this
statutory
requirement,
EPA
developed
secondary
treatment
regulations
which
are
specified
in
40
CFR
Part
133.
These
technology­
based
regulations
apply
to
all
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plants
and
identify
the
minimum
level
of
effluent
quality
attainable
by
secondary
treatment
in
terms
of
BOD
5,
TSS,
and
pH.
The
regulations
provide
for
special
considerations
regarding
combined
sewers,
industrial
wastes,
waste
stabilization
ponds,
and
less
concentrated
influent
wastewater
for
combined
and
separate
sewers.
Pursuant
to
Section
304(
d)(
4)
of
the
CWA,
the
regulations
also
define
"
treatment
equivalent
to
secondary
treatment"
and
the
alternative
standards
that
apply
to
facilities
meeting
this
definition.

5.2.1
Secondary
Treatment
An
important
aspect
of
municipal
wastewater
is
that
it
is
amenable
to
biological
treatment.
The
biological
treatment
component
of
a
municipal
treatment
plant
is
termed
secondary
treatment
and
is
usually
preceded
by
simple
settling
(
primary
treatment).
In
response
to
the
CWA
requirements,
EPA
evaluated
performance
data
10USEPA
(
1987).
Development
Document
for
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
the
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
Point
Source
Category.
Vol
I
and
Vol
II.
EPA
440/
1­
87/
009.
Office
of
Water,
Industrial
Technology
Division.

11USEPA
(
1991).
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control.
EPA­
505/
2­
90­
001.
Office
of
Water
Enforcement
and
Permits.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
75
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
for
POTWs
practicing
secondary
treatment
and
established
performance
standards
based
on
its
evaluation.
Secondary
treatment
standards,
therefore,
are
defined
by
the
limitations
provided
in
Exhibit
5­
6.

EXHIBIT
5­
6
Secondary
Treatment
Standards
Parameter
30­
Day
Average
7­
Day
Average
5­
Day
BOD
30
mg/
l
45
mg/
l
TSS
30
mg/
l
45
mg/
l
pH
6
­
9
s.
u.
(
instantaneous)
 
Removal
85%
BOD
5
and
TSS
 
According
to
40
CFR
§
122.45(
f),
permit
writers
must
apply
these
secondary
treatment
standards
as
mass­
based
limits
using
the
design
flow
of
the
plant.
Permit
writers
may
also
apply
concentration­
based
effluent
limitations
for
both
30­
day
and
7­
day
average
limitations.

Where
nitrification
is
occurring
in
a
treatment
process,
BOD
5
may
not
provide
a
Example:

A
POTW
with
a
design
flow
rate
of
2.0
mgd
would
have
permit
limits
based
on
secondary
treatment
standards
as
follows:

Mass­
Based
Limit
=
Design
Flow
´
Concentration­
Based
Limit
´
Conversion
Factor
BOD
(
30­
day
average)
2.0
mgd
´
30mg/
l
´
8.34
(
lb)(
l)/(
mg)(
gal)
=
500
lb/
day
(
7­
day
average)
2.0
mgd
´
45mg/
l
´
8.34
(
lb)(
l)/(
mg)(
gal)
=
750
lb/
day
TSS
(
30­
day
average)
2.0
mgd
´
30mg/
l
´
8.34
(
lb)(
l)/(
mg)(
gal)
=
500
lb/
day
(
7­
day
average)
2.0
mgd
´
45mg/
l
´
8.34
(
lb)(
l)/(
mg)(
gal)
=
750
lb/
day
pH
(
instantaneous)
6­
9
s.
u.

Removal
(
30­
day
average)
85%
BOD
5
and
TSS
removal
reliable
measure
of
the
oxygen
demand
of
the
effluent.
This
is
because
nitrifying
bacteria
use
a
large
amount
of
oxygen
to
consume
unoxidized
nitrogen
and
ammonia­

76
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
nitrogen
and
convert
these
to
oxidized
nitrate.
In
these
instances,
basing
permit
limits
on
carbonaceous
BOD
5
(
CBOD
5)
instead
of
BOD
5
eliminates
the
impact
of
nitrification
on
effluent
limits.
EPA,
therefore,
allows
for
the
use
of
CBOD
5
limits
to
minimize
false
indications
of
poor
facility
performance
as
a
result
of
nitrogenous
pollutants.
Allowed
under
40
CFR
§
133.102(
a)(
4),
the
permit
writer
does
have
the
discretion
to
set
effluent
limits
for
CBOD
5
in
lieu
of
a
BOD
5
limit.
EPA
has
studied
the
use
of
a
CBOD
5
limit
and
has
concluded
that
a
25
mg/
l
30­
day
average
and
40
mg/
l
7­
day
average
are
effectively
equivalent
to
the
(
30/
45)
BOD
5
limits.

Chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD)
and
total
organic
carbon
(
TOC)
laboratory
tests
can
provide
an
accurate
measure
of
the
organic
content
of
wastewater
in
a
shorter
time
frame
than
a
BOD
5
test
(
i.
e.,
several
hours
versus
5
days).
Pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
133.104(
b),
the
permit
writer
may
substitute
COD
or
TOC
monitoring
for
BOD
5
when
a
long­
term
BOD:
COD
or
BOD:
TOC
correlation
has
been
demonstrated.

Municipal
wastewater
treatment
facilities
are
required
to
meet
secondary
treatment
standards
with
few
exceptions.
The
exceptions,
identified
at
40
CFR
§
133.103,
include:

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

°
Treatment
works
that
receive
wastes
from
industrial
categories
that
have
ELGs
for
BOD
5
and
TSS
less
stringent
than
the
secondary
treatment
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
133,
can
qualify
to
have
their
BOD
5
and
TSS
limits
adjusted
upwards
provided
that:
(
1)
the
permitted
discharge
is
less
than
would
be
permitted
under
the
corresponding
ELGs
for
direct
discharges,
and
(
2)
the
flow
or
loading
of
such
pollutants
introduced
by
the
industrial
category
exceeds
ten
percent
of
the
design
flow
or
loading
of
the
POTW.

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

°
Treatment
works
that
receive
less
concentrated
wastes
from
separate
sewer
systems
can
qualify
to
have
their
percent
removal
limit
reduced
or
receive
a
mass
loading
limit
provided
that:
(
1)
the
facility
can
consistently
meet
its
permit
effluent
concentration
limits
but
cannot
meet
its
percent
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
77
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
removal
limits
because
of
less
concentrated
effluent
water,
(
2)
the
facility
would
have
been
required
to
meet
significantly
more
stringent
limitations
than
would
otherwise
be
required
by
the
concentration­
based
standards,
and
(
3)
the
less
concentrated
effluent
is
not
the
result
of
excessive
infiltration/
inflow
(
I/
I).

[
Note:
The
determination
of
excessive
I/
I
is
based
on
(
1)
the
"
excessive
I/
I"
definition
in
40
CFR
§
35.2005(
b)(
16)
as
the
quantities
of
I/
I
which
can
be
economically
eliminated
from
a
sewer
system
as
determined
in
a
costeffectiveness
analysis
that
compares
the
costs
for
correcting
the
I/
I
conditions
to
the
total
costs
for
transportation
and
treatment
of
the
I/
I
and
(
2)
I/
I
is
not
excessive
if
the
total
flow
(
i.
e.,
wastewater
plus
I/
I)
to
the
POTW
is
less
than
275
gallons
per
capita
per
day.]

°
Treatment
works
receiving
less
concentrated
wastes
from
combined
sewers
during
dry
weather
can
qualify
to
have
their
percent
removal
limit
reduced
or
receive
a
mass
loading
limit
provided
that:
(
1)
the
facility
can
consistently
meet
its
permit
effluent
concentration
limits,
but
cannot
meet
its
percent
removal
limits
because
of
less
concentrated
effluent
water,
(
2)
the
facility
would
have
been
required
to
meet
significantly
more
stringent
limitations
than
would
otherwise
be
required
by
the
concentration­
based
standards,
and
(
3)
the
less
concentrated
influent
wastewater
does
not
result
from
either
excessive
infiltration
or
clear
water
industrial
discharges
during
dry
weather
periods.
If
the
less
concentrated
influent
is
the
result
of
clear
water
industrial
discharges,
the
treatment
works
must
control
such
discharges
pursuant
to
40
CFR
Part
403.

[
Note:
The
determination
of
excessive
infiltration
is
based
on
(
1)
the
"
excessive
infiltration"
definition
in
40
CFR
§
35.2005(
b)(
28)
as
the
quantity
of
flow
which
is
less
than
120
gallons
per
capita
per
day
(
domestic
flow
and
infiltration)
or
the
quantity
of
infiltration
which
cannot
be
economically
and
effectively
eliminated
from
a
sewer
system
as
determined
in
a
cost
effectiveness
analysis
and
(
2)
the
criterion
that
either
40
gallons
per
capita
per
day
or
1,500
gallons
per
inch
diameter
per
mile
of
sewer
may
be
used
as
the
threshold
value
for
that
portion
of
the
dry
weather
base
flow
attributed
to
infiltration.]

The
NPDES
regulations
also
provide
for
a
waiver
from
secondary
treatment
requirements
for
discharges
into
marine
waters.
In
these
instances,
the
POTW
must
file
a
modification
request
for
a
marine
discharge
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
G.
More
detail
on
marine
variance
requests
is
provided
in
Section
10.1.3.

78
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
5.2.2
Equivalent­
to­
Secondary
Treatment
Definition
Following
publication
of
the
secondary
treatment
regulations,
legislative
history
indicates
that
Congress
was
concerned
that
EPA
had
not
"
sanctioned"
the
use
of
certain
biological
treatment
techniques
that
were
effective
in
achieving
significant
reductions
in
BOD
5
and
SS
for
secondary
treatment.
Therefore,
to
prevent
unnecessary
construction
of
costly
new
facilities,
Congress
included
language
in
the
1981
amendment
to
the
Construction
Grants
statutes
[
Section
23
of
Pub.
L.
97­
147]

that
required
EPA
to
provide
allowances
for
alternative
biological
treatment
technologies,
such
as
a
trickling
filter
or
waste
stabilization
pond.
In
response
to
this
requirement,
definition
of
secondary
treatment
was
modified
on
September
20,
1984,

and
June
3,
1985,
and
published
in
the
revised
secondary
treatment
regulations
contained
in
40
CFR
§
133.105.
These
regulations
allow
alternative
limits
for
facilities
using
trickling
filters
and
waste
stabilization
ponds
that
meet
the
requirements
for
"
equivalent
to
secondary
treatment."
Several
important
concepts
form
the
basis
for
this
revision
of
the
regulations:

°
Certain
classes
of
biological
treatment
facilities
that
are
capable
of
achieving
significant
reductions
in
BOD
5
and
TSS,
but
cannot
consistently
achieve
secondary
treatment,
should
be
defined
as
separate
and
distinct
from
secondary
treatment
facilities.

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

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

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

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

°
Regulations
should
address
variations
in
facility
performance
due
to
geographic,
climatic,
or
seasonal
conditions.

In
recognition
of
the
above
factors,
the
revisions
to
include
a
definition
for
equivalent­
to­
secondary
treatment
entail
a
change
in
the
traditional
definition
of
secondary
treatment
for
some
POTWs.
The
capability
and
performance
of
an
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
79
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
individual
plant
is
assessed,
and
limits
are
selected
from
a
range
of
possible
values.

Although
this
process
has
been
used
for
industrial
facilities,
the
concept
has
generally
not
been
applied
to
municipal
permits
(
with
the
exception
of
interim
permit
limits).

To
be
eligible
for
equivalent­
to­
secondary
limitations,
a
POTW
must
meet
all
of
the
following
criteria:

°
The
principal
treatment
process
must
be
either
a
trickling
filter
or
waste
stabilization
pond
(
e.
g.,
the
largest
percentage
of
BOD
5
and
TSS
removal
is
provided
by
the
trickling
filter
or
waste
stabilization
pond
system).

°
The
effluent
quality
consistently
achieved,
despite
proper
operations
and
maintenance,
is
in
excess
of
30
mg/
l
BOD
5
and
TSS.

°
Water
quality
is
not
adversely
affected
by
the
discharge.

°
The
treatment
works
as
a
whole
provides
significant
biological
treatment
such
that
a
minimum
65
percent
reduction
of
BOD
5
is
consistently
attained
(
30­
day
average).

A
treatment
works
that
is
operating
beyond
its
design
hydraulic
or
organic
loading
limit
is
not
considered
an
eligible
facility.
If
overloading
or
structural
failure
is
causing
poor
performance,
the
solution
to
the
problem
is
construction,
not
effluent
limitations
adjustment.
There
are
several
important
implications
of
the
equivalent­

tosecondary
treatment
regulation
as
it
applies
to
specific
municipal
permitting
issues.

These
issues
are
discussed
below.

New
Facility
Limitations
As
specified
in
40
CFR
§
133.105(
f),
the
permitting
authority
must
set
more
stringent
limits
for
new
facilities
if
an
analysis
of
new
plant
performance
shows
that
more
stringent
limits
than
the
maximum
equivalent­
to­
secondary
limits
(
45/
45)
can
be
met.
Recently,
a
wide
range
of
designs
(
e.
g.,
solids
contact
channels,
covers)
have
been
used
on
trickling
filters
to
improve
their
performance.
This
situation
creates
a
performance
dichotomy
between
old
trickling
filters
and
current
state­
of­
the­
art
plants.

The
regulations
recognize
this
disparity
and
encourage
States
to
establish
separate
limits
for
new
trickling
filters
based
on
current
design
practices
in
the
State.
Where
possible,
an
analysis
of
similar
plants
is
the
preferred
method
for
establishing
permit
limits
where
in­
state
data
on
new
trickling
filters
are
not
available.
Where
no
80
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
performance
data
are
available
for
determining
new
plant
capability,
literature
values
may
be
used.

Calculation
of
Permit
Limits
for
Equivalent­
to­
Secondary
Facilities
In
most
cases,
the
permit
limits
for
equivalent­
to­
secondary
facilities
will
be
selected
from
the
30
to
45
mg/
l
BOD
5
and
TSS
monthly
average,
and
45
to
65
mg/
l
BOD
5
and
TSS
weekly
average
range
established
by
the
regulation.
Obviously,
not
all
permits
will
be
set
at
the
45
mg/
l
monthly
average
and
65
mg/
l
weekly
average
top
of
the
range.
The
selection
should
be
based
on
current
performance
data
for
the
last
two
years
of
operation,
at
a
minimum.

Where
the
plant
performance
data
contain
erroneous
values
because
of
plant
upsets,
or
other
situations
not
associated
with
poor
operation
or
maintenance,
an
adjustment
to
the
permit
limit
calculation
may
be
made.
The
data
for
the
month
in
question
may
be
adjusted
by
dropping
the
erroneous
daily
value
and
recalculating
the
monthly
average
based
on
the
remaining
daily
values.
Another
alternative
is
to
analyze
monthly
average
values
for
a
period
greater
than
two
years
and
drop
the
monthly
averages
that
are
erroneous
because
of
explained
upset
situations.

Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
data
should
be
used
for
calculations
whenever
possible.
The
DMRs
must
support
the
permit
writer's
decision
for
an
equivalent
to
secondary
facility.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
burden
of
proof
for
performance
data
and
demonstration
of
proper
operation
and
maintenance
is
the
responsibility
of
the
municipality.

A
trickling
filter
or
lagoon
will
often
be
combined
with
another
biological
process
(
i.
e.,
activated
sludge
process)
in
one
treatment
plant.
In
this
case,
if
the
trickling
filter
or
lagoon
qualifies
for
equivalent­
to­
secondary
limits,
the
permit
limits
for
the
treatment
plant
can
be
derived
by
averaging
the
equivalent­
to­
secondary
and
conventional
secondary
treatment
limits.
To
accomplish
this,
a
flow­
weighted
average
of
the
two
effluent
concentration
limits
should
be
calculated
and
applied
as
the
outfall
limitation
for
the
permit.
An
alternative
to
this
approach
is
the
use
of
internal
waste
stream
limitations
as
authorized
by
40
CFR
§
122.45(
h)
for
each
biological
process
effluent
line.
The
permit
writer
should
encourage
the
continued
use
of
existing
trickling
filters
and
lagoons,
where
appropriate,
through
the
application
of
appropriate
equivalent­

tosecondary
limits.
However,
the
permit
writer
must
be
sure
that
these
facilities
are
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
81
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
capable
of
meeting
the
proposed
effluent
limits
without
causing
water
quality
impacts
before
the
permit
limits
can
be
adjusted.
If
one
cannot
determine
this,
equivalent­

tosecondary
limits
cannot
be
used
in
the
permit.

Alternative
State
Requirements
(
ASRs)

The
Alternative
State
Requirement
(
ASR)
provision
contained
in
40
CFR
§
133.105(
d)
of
the
regulation
allows
States
the
flexibility
to
set
permit
limits
above
the
maximum
levels
of
45
mg/
l
monthly
average
and
65
mg/
l
weekly
average
BOD
5
and
TSS
from
lagoons
meeting
certain
requirements.
Where
lagoon
suspended
solids
requirements
are
already
above
45
mg/
l
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
133.103(
c),
an
ASR
by
the
State
is
not
necessary,
unless
higher
limits
are
desired.
To
establish
an
ASR,
the
State
must
do
two
things:

°
Identify
a
group
of
equivalent
facilities
that
warrant
different
limits
in
exceedance
of
the
equivalent­
to­
secondary
values
contained
in
40
CFR
Part
133
°
Justify
the
higher
permit
limitations
for
these
facilities.

The
group
of
facilities
can
be
selected
because
of
climatic
or
geographic
location,
the
type
of
technology
used,
or
any
other
supportable
criteria.
The
analysis
of
plant
data
for
the
group
must
be
statistically
sound
and
should
follow
the
methods
presented
in
EPA's
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control.
12
The
ASR
must
be
approved
by
the
EPA
Region
before
permits
can
be
written
using
the
ASR
values.
The
public
notice
of
a
proposed
ASR
is
the
responsibility
of
the
State.
EPA
has
published
approved
ASRs
in
49
FR
37005,

September
20,
1984.
Exhibit
5­
7
is
a
summary
of
the
ASRs
for
each
State.

Carbonaceous
BOD
Limits
EPA
recognizes
that
the
carbonaceous
BOD
(
CBOD)
test
can
provide
accurate
information
on
treatment
plant
performance
in
many
cases.
However,
the
use
of
CBOD
in
permits
should
be
focused
on
facilities
with
known
or
suspected
nitrification
12USEPA
(
1991).
Technical
Support
Document
for
Water
Quality­
Based
Toxics
Control.
EPA­
505/
2­
90­
001.
Office
of
Water
Enforcement
and
Permits.

82
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
problems
such
as
underloaded
facilities
and
new
facilities
with
long
detention
times.

These
conditions
favor
nitrifying
bacteria
and
can
lead
to
erroneous
BOD
5
test
results.

The
equivalent­
to­
secondary
treatment
regulations
in
40
CFR
§
133.105(
e)
allow
optional
use
of
a
CBOD
limit
and
test
procedure
in
municipal
permits
as
a
substitute
for
the
standard
BOD
5.
This
substitution
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
permitting
authority.

To
establish
a
CBOD
limit
for
an
equivalent­
to­
secondary
treatment
facility,
the
permitting
authority
must
have
data
to
show
that
nitrifying
bacteria
in
the
treatment
plant
are
causing
the
BOD
5
test
results
to
be
significantly
impacted.
Extensive
BOD
5/
CBOD
comparisons
should
not
be
necessary
because
the
actual
CBOD
limit
will
be
established
by
(
1)
determining
the
BOD
5
limit
that
can
be
met
through
proper
operation
and
maintenance,
and
(
2)
if
the
BOD
5
limit
is
between
30
and
45
mg/
l,

setting
the
CBOD
limit
5
units
lower
(
e.
g.,
between
25
and
40
mg/
l).

The
EPA­
approved
test
procedures
in
40
CFR
Part
136
now
contain
a
CBOD
(
nitrogen
inhibited)
test
procedure.
The
CBOD
test
can
be
specified
for
any
municipal
permit.
However,
the
BOD
5/
CBOD
relationship
(
5
mg/
l
difference)
may
not
apply
outside
the
30
to
45
mg/
l
BOD
5
range.
If
CBOD
limits
will
be
used
for
equivalent­

tosecondary
permits
above
45
mg/
l
(
BOD
5),
a
BOD
5/
CBOD
relationship
should
be
established
during
the
ASR
process.
Where
parallel
BOD
5/
CBOD
test
data
are
available,
they
must
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
Regional
office
with
the
proposed
ASRs
for
approval.
For
permit
limits
below
30
mg/
l
BOD
5
the
corresponding
CBOD
limit
should
be
developed
during
an
advanced
treatment
review
or
from
the
wasteload
allocation.
The
use
of
CBOD
in
the
permit
is
not
a
substitute
for
nitrogen
or
ammonia
limits
if
in­
stream
nitrification
or
ammonia
toxicity
is
creating
a
problem.

NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
83
Chapter
5
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
EXHIBIT
5­
7
State­
Specific
ASRs
Location
Alternate
TSS
Limit
(
30­
day
average)
(
mg/
l)

Alabama
90
Alaska
70
Arizona
90
Arkansas
90
California
95
Colorado
Aerated
ponds
75
All
others
105
Connecticut
None
Delaware
None
District
of
Columbia
None
Florida
None
Georgia
90
Guam
None
Hawaii
None
Idaho
None
Illinois
37
Indiana
70
Iowa
Controlled
discharge,
3
cell
Case­
by­
case
but
not
greater
than
80
All
others
80
Kansas
80
Kentucky
None
Louisiana
90
Maine
45
Maryland
90
Massachusetts
None
Michigan:
Controlled
seasonal
discharge
Summer
70
Winter
40
Minnesota
None
Mississippi
90
Missouri
80
Montana
100
84
­
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
Technology­
Based
Effluent
Limits
Chapter
5
EXHIBIT
5­
7
State­
Specific
ASRs
(
continued)

Location
Alternate
TSS
Limit
(
30­
day
average)
(
mg/
l)
Nebraska
80
North
Carolina
90
North
Dakota
North
and
East
of
Missouri
River
60
South
and
West
of
Missouri
River
100
Nevada
90
New
Hampshire
45
New
Jersey
None
New
Mexico
90
New
York
70
Ohio
65
Oklahoma
90
Oregon
East
of
Cascade
Mountains
85
West
of
Cascade
Mountains
50
Pennsylvania
None
Puerto
Rico
None
Rhode
Island
45
South
Carolina
90
South
Dakota
120
Tennessee
100
Texas
90
Utah
None
Vermont
55
Virginia
East
of
Blue
Ridge
Mountains
60
West
of
Blue
Ridge
Mountains
78
East
slope
counties:
Loudoun,
Fauquier,
Rappahannock,
Madison,
Green,
Albemarle,
Nelson,
Amherst,
Bedford,
Franklin,
Patrick.
Case­
by­
base
application
of
60/
78
limits.

Virgin
Islands
None
Washington
75
West
Virginia
80
Wisconsin
80
Wyoming
100
Trust
Territories
and
N.
Marianas
None
Source:
49
FR
37005;
9/
20/
84
NPDES
Permit
Writers'
Manual
­
85