[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42434-42527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18866]
[[Page 42433]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 501
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application
Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 4, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 42434]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 501
[FRL-6401-2]
RIN 2040-AB39
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Application Requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Other
Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today amends permit
application requirements and application forms for publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) and other treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). TWTDS include facilities that generate sewage sludge,
provide commercial treatment of sewage sludge, manufacture a product
derived from sewage sludge, or provide disposal of sewage sludge.
Today's rule consolidates POTW application requirements, including
information regarding toxics monitoring, whole effluent toxicity (WET)
testing, industrial user and hazardous waste contributions, and sewer
collection system overflows. The most significant revisions require
toxic monitoring by major POTWs (and other pretreatment POTWs) and
limited pollutant monitoring by minor POTWs. EPA believes that
permitting authorities need this information in order to issue permits
that adequately protect the Nation's water resources.
Form 2A replaces existing Standard Form A and Short Form A to
account for changes in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program since the forms were issued in 1973.
The regulations also clarify the requirements for TWTDS and allow
the permitting authorities to obtain the information needed to issue
permits that meet the requirements of the 40 CFR Part 503 sewage sludge
use or disposal regulations. Form 2S replaces the existing Interim
Sewage Sludge Form. Form 2S is similar to the Interim Sewage Sludge
Form but requires less information.
EPA is revising these regulations to ensure that permitting
authorities obtain the information necessary to issue permits which
protect the environment in the most efficient manner. The forms make it
easier for permit applicants to provide the necessary information with
their applications and minimize the need for additional follow-up
requests from permitting authorities. EPA expects the rule to reduce
current annual reporting and record keeping burdens by 21 percent, by
standardizing the forms to match information requests with information
needs.
This rule also lifts the stay of 40 CFR 501.15(d)(1)(i)(B) in a
final rule streamlining state sewage sludge regulations published on
August 24, 1998 (63 FR 45113).
DATES: This rule and 40 CFR 501.15(d)(1)(i)(B) expires on December 2,
1999. In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this rule shall be considered
final for the purposes of judicial review at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern
Standard Time) on August 18, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The record for this rulemaking, including all public
comments on the proposal, will be available for inspection and copying
at the Office of Water Docket. The docket is located at EPA, East Tower
Basement, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket is open
Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, please contact the docket at (202)
260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on Form 2A and
municipal wastewater permitting issues in this document, contact Robin
Danesi, (202) 260-2991, Permits Division (4203), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20460.
For information on Form 2S and sewage sludge permitting issues in
this document, contact Wendy Bell, (202) 260-9534, Permits Division
(4203), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460.
Copies of this document with the forms are available from the EPA
home page at www.epa.gov under the Laws and Regulations section.
Electronic copies of the forms will be available on the Office of
Wastewater Management home page at www.epa.gov/owm. EPA plans to
provide a word wizard of the form which should be available shortly
after the final rule is promulgated.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are governmental
entities responsible for implementation of the NPDES and sewage sludge
programs and entities that are regulated by these programs. Regulated
entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local government.......................... Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, owners and operators
of treatment works treating
domestic sewage.
Private................................... Privately owned treatment
works or other treatment
works treating domestic
sewage.
State government.......................... Treatment works owned or
operated by States or
Tribes.
Federal government........................ Federally owned treatment
works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Parts 122 and 503 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Information in the preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Overview
B. Public Consultation in the Rule Development
II. Description of Today's Final Rule and Response to Comments
A. Scope of Today's Rulemaking
B. Forms 2A & 2S
1. Form 2A
a. Overview
b. Applicability to Privately Owned and Federally Owned
Treatment Works
2. Form 2S
a. Overview
b. Clarification of TWTDS
3. Reasons for Separate Forms 2A and 2S
4. Electronic Application Forms
C. Endangered Species and Historic Properties
D. Definitions
E. Requirements Concerning the Use of Forms
(Secs. 122.21(a),(c),(d), and (f))
F. Application Requirements for POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j))
1. Permit as a Shield
2. Basic Application Information
3. Additional Application Information for Applicants With
Flows Greater Than or Equal to 0.1 mgd.
4. Information on Effluent Discharges
5. Effluent Monitoring for Specific Parameters
a. Pollutant Data Requirements for All POTWs
b. Pollutant Data Requirements for POTWs With Design Flows
Greater Than or Equal to 0.1 mgd.
c. Additional Pollutant Data Requirements for Some POTWs
[[Page 42435]]
6. Effluent Monitoring for Whole Effluent Toxicity
7. Industrial Discharges
8. Discharges From RCRA/CERCLA Waste Sources
9. Combined Sewer Overflows
10. Contractors
11. Certification
G. Application Requirements for TWTDS (40 CFR 122.21(q))
1. Facility Information
2. Applicant Information
3. Permit Information
4. Indian Country
5. Topographic Map
6. Sewage Sludge Handling
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
8. Requirements for a Person Who Prepares Sewage Sludge
9. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
10. Surface Disposal
11. Incineration
12. Disposal in a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
13. Contractors
14. Other Information
15. Signature
H. Permit Conditions for POTWs (40 CFR 122.44(j)
I. State Program Requirements (40 CFR parts 123 & 501)
III. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
H. Executive Order 13045
I. Executive Order 13084
I. Background
A. Overview
EPA provided an extensive discussion of the background for today's
rule in the proposed rule published on December 6, 1995 (60 FR 62546).
For the sake of brevity, EPA refers the reader to that action for
information about the background of today's rule.
B. Public Consultation in the Rule Development
EPA made efforts to consult with interested stakeholders during the
development of the December 6, 1995, proposed rule. In late 1993 and
early 1994, EPA sought feedback on draft forms and other elements of
the proposal from States with approved NPDES programs, local
governments, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the California Association of Sanitation
Agencies (CASA), the Water Environment Federation (WEF), and several
environmental groups. In response to this outreach effort, EPA received
written comments from a dozen States, several municipalities, and from
AMSA. EPA also met with State and municipal representatives and
participated in a conference call with representatives from ten POTWs
and two States.
EPA received 59 comments during the public comment period on the
proposed rule and made numerous changes to the rule and the forms in
response to the comments. Specific comments are mentioned throughout
today's preamble in the applicable sections.
II. Description of Today's Final Rule and Response to Comments
A. Scope of Today's Rulemaking
Today's document finalizes two sets of application requirements and
corresponding permit application forms, and provides instructions for
each. Section 122.21(j) contains application requirements pertaining to
wastewater treatment and discharge into and from publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). The requirements are incorporated into the new
Form 2A which replaces Standard Form A and Short Form A, both of which
were developed in 1973. Section 122.21(q) contains application
requirements pertaining to generation, treatment, and disposal of
sewage sludge at POTWs and other treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). These requirements are incorporated into the new Form
2S which replaces the Interim Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form.
EPA promulgates these application regulations and publishes the new
forms for several reasons. First, this rulemaking addresses changes to
the NPDES program since 1973. The NPDES program applicable to POTWs has
changed significantly since that time, specifically in the areas of
toxics control, water quality-based permitting and pretreatment
programs. Second, the rule consolidates application requirements from
existing regulations into a ``modular'' permit application form,
thereby streamlining and clarifying the process for permit applicants.
Third, these revisions provide permit writers with the information
necessary to develop appropriate NPDES permits consistent with
requirements of the Clean Water Act and thus, also provide greater
certainty for permittees that compliance with their permits constitutes
compliance with the CWA. Fourth, the Agency seeks to reduce redundant
reporting by allowing NPDES permitting authorities to waive certain
information requirements where information is already available to the
permitting authority and, finally, to provide a platform for electronic
data transmission.
EPA will use the forms in States where the Agency administers the
NPDES and/or sewage sludge programs. Authorized States may choose to
use these forms because the forms will provide the required application
information. Authorized States can also elect to use forms of their own
design so long as the information requested includes at least the
information required by today's final permit application regulations.
EPA and State authorities may request additional information from
permit applicants whenever necessary to establish appropriate permit
limits and conditions. See CWA sec. 308 and 402(b)(2)(B).
In the December 1995 proposal, EPA asked for comment on whether the
forms and instructions should be included with the final rulemaking
package. EPA received numerous comments that said that the forms and
instructions should be published so they could be available for all to
review along with the regulation. EPA has changed the forms
significantly in response to comments and in order to facilitate
electronic reporting. Therefore, EPA is publishing the forms in the new
format with the final rule. The final forms and instructions are
included as an appendix to today's notice, but will not be printed in
the CFR.
B. Forms 2A and 2S
1. Form 2A
a. Overview. Prior to today's rule, NPDES permitting authorities
generally gathered POTW data using Form 1, Standard Form A, and Short
Form A. While all these forms are approved Federal forms, the NPDES
regulations did not require use of the forms by POTWs when applying for
a permit. Standard Form A was intended to be used by all POTWs with a
design flow equal to or exceeding one million gallons per day (mgd). It
contains questions about the facility and collection system, discharges
to and from the facility (including information on some specific
pollutant parameters), and planned improvements and implementation
schedules. Short Form A was intended for use by all POTWs with a design
flow of less than one mgd. It contains only fifteen questions of a
summary nature, and asks for virtually no information on specific
pollutants. Many States used one or both of the Federal forms, but a
number of States
[[Page 42436]]
have developed forms that request information not included on the
Federal forms.
The December 1995 proposed application form contained two parts,
Basic Application Information and Supplemental Application Information.
The basic application section was to be completed by all POTWs and
contained facility information and monitoring requirements for 17
pollutants. The supplemental application information was for applicants
providing data on toxic pollutants, applicants with significant
industrial users, and applicants with CSOs.
During the comment period, EPA collected and scrutinized data on
the types and quantities of toxic pollutants discharged by minor POTWs.
EPA completed an evaluation of existing data sources and conducted
toxic monitoring at selected minor POTWs. The results were published as
``Evaluation of the Presence of Priority Pollutants in the Discharges
of Minor POTWs'' in June 1996. Copies of the report were sent to all
State NPDES coordinators and an electronic version is available on the
Office of Wastewater Management Home page (www.epa.gov/owm). The Study
included a query of the Permit Compliance System (PCS), EPA's
nationwide database for storing NPDES permit information. The June 1996
Study compiled the information from a PCS query for minor POTW data
from 1990 to the present, an evaluation of minor POTW data provided by
State agencies, and on-site monitoring for selected toxics at 86 minor
POTWs located throughout the country.
Based on the information from the Minor POTW Study and comments
received on the proposal, EPA decided to modify the proposed
application requirement to reduce the information required from
facilities under 0.1 mgd. The 0.1 mgd cut-off was based on data from
the EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS). The data showed that facilities
with design flows greater than 1.0 mgd (major facilities) account for
94.6% of the total POTW flow nationwide. Facilities with design flows
between 1.0 mgd and 0.1 mgd account for 5% of the total flow. The
remaining 0.4% of the nationwide POTW flow is discharged by facilities
with design flows less than 0.1 mgd. A facility with a design flow of
less than 0.1 mgd typically serves a population of 1,000 people or
less. Approximately 40% of all POTWs fall into this less than 0.1 mgd
category. Because these POTWs serve very small communities that
contribute a small amount of flow (usually without an industrial
influent component), EPA determined that requiring less information
from these POTWs would reduce the costs associated with analytic
monitoring without significantly affecting the information otherwise
needed by permit writers.
Today's Form 2A still contains two parts, but the Basic Application
Information has been subdivided to reduce the requirements for
facilities with a design flow under 0.1 mgd. The ``Basic Application
Information for All Applicants'' part includes information about the
collection system and the treatment plant, general information
concerning the types of discharges from the treatment plant,
identification of outfalls, and effluent monitoring data from the plant
for 6 parameters. The requirements are expanded to include effluent
monitoring for 14 parameters and several additional questions for POTWs
with design flows greater than or equal to 0.1 mgd but less than 1.0
mgd and without pretreatment programs. Larger POTWs and pretreatment
POTWs must submit the information requested in the ``Supplemental
Application Information'' part of Form 2A, which requires effluent
monitoring data for metals and organic compounds, as well as the
parameters required for smaller POTWs. This part also requires results
of whole effluent toxicity tests, information on significant industrial
users, and information on combined sewer overflows (CSOs) if
applicable.
b. Applicability to Privately Owned and Federally Owned Treatment
Works.
As in the case of existing Standard Form A and Short Form A, Form
2A and the application requirements at Sec. 122.21(j) are required only
for POTWs. EPA believes, however, that NPDES permitting authorities
have the discretion to use the form on a case-by-case basis for
treatment works that are not owned by a State or municipality. As
previously discussed, the NPDES program has evolved considerably since
EPA promulgated Standard Form A and Short Form A in 1973. The program
can clearly be applied to facilities that are similar to POTWs but
which do not meet the regulatory definition of ``publicly owned
treatment works'' (POTWs). Although not owned by States or
municipalities, such facilities nevertheless may receive predominantly
domestic wastewater, provide physical and/or biological treatment, and
discharge effluent to waters of the United States. Such facilities
include Federally owned treatment works (FOTWs) and privately owned
treatment works that treat primarily domestic wastewater.
EPA received eight comments regarding FOTWs and privately owned
treatment works. All but one favored expansion of POTW application
requirements to facilities that operate similarly to POTWs but that may
be Federally or privately owned. One commenter stated that the current
system of different forms for treatment works based on ownership
creates an artificial difference between facilities. Other commenters
agreed and felt that all facilities that operate similarly should
complete the same application form. A commenter representing the
Department of Defense provided comments on the similarities between
FOTWs and POTWs based on size and scope of activities at military
installations and compared the installations to small cities. The
commenter argued that statutory differences prevent EPA from requiring
the same information from Federal facilities that operate similarly to
POTWs.
EPA is aware that Federal and State permitting authorities use a
number of mechanisms for obtaining NPDES permit application information
from non-POTW treatment works. These mechanisms include Standard Form
A, Short Form A, Form 2C (``Existing Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining,
and Silvicultural Operations''), and Form 2E (``Facilities Which Do Not
Discharge Process Wastewater''). EPA believes that Form 2A is often the
most appropriate application form for non-POTW treatment works.
Nevertheless, EPA is not requiring the Form 2A information from
non-POTW treatment works. Despite many functional similarities to
POTWs, such facilities do not share the same regulatory requirements.
Non-POTW treatment works are not required under the CWA, for example,
to develop pretreatment programs. The CWA does not require such
facilities to meet secondary treatment requirements, though permits for
such facilities often apply secondary treatment based limits after a
best professional judgement evaluation has been performed by the permit
writer. NPDES regulations do not require such facilities to report
results of whole effluent toxicity testing with their permit
applications. For these facilities, uniformly requiring the same
information required in Form 2A might be unnecessary. EPA has added
language to the introductory paragraph of Sec. 122.21(j) of today's
final rule that allows the Director to require such facilities to
comply with the POTW application requirements (e.g. through Form 2A) on
a case-by-case basis. This discretion will provide NPDES permit
[[Page 42437]]
writers with the information necessary to develop permits for
facilities that may operate similarly to POTWs but that do not meet the
regulatory definition.
2. Form 2S
a. Overview. Today, EPA finalizes a new form, Form 2S, to collect
information on sewage sludge from treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). The term ``treatment works treating domestic sewage''
is a broad one, intended to reach facilities that generate sewage
sludge or effectively change its pollutant characteristics as well as
facilities that control its disposal. The term includes all POTWs and
other facilities that treat domestic wastewater. It also includes
facilities that do not treat domestic wastewater but that treat or
dispose of sewage sludge, such as sewage sludge incinerators,
composting facilities, commercial sewage sludge handlers that process
sludge for distribution, and sites used for sewage sludge disposal. In
addition, EPA may designate a facility a TWTDS when the facility's
sludge quality or sludge handling, use, or disposal practices have the
potential to adversely effect public health and the environment.
Individual septic tanks or similar devices are not considered TWTDS.
EPA recognizes that the term ``biosolids'' is now being used by
professional organizations and other stakeholders in place of ``sewage
sludge'' to emphasize that it is a resource that can be recycled
beneficially. EPA intends to work with these stakeholders to define the
term ``biosolids'' consistent with the definition of ``sewage sludge''
in the CWA. Until then, EPA will continue to refer to sewage sludge in
its regulations.
Form 2S consists of 2 sections. Part 1 asks for limited background
information rather than a complete permit application. Only the
information in Part 1 must be submitted by ``sludge-only'' facilities,
i.e. facilities that do not discharge wastewater to surface waters,
unless the permit writer determines that the information in Part 2 must
also be provided. It is intended to give the permitting authority
enough information to decide whether or not to issue a permit to that
facility. The information in Part 2 must be submitted by all TWTDS with
an NPDES permit and ``sludge-only'' facilities that have been asked by
the permitting authority to submit a complete permit application.
b. Clarification of TWTDS. No change was proposed in the definition
of TWTDS or who is required to provide the information in Form 2S, but
EPA received several comments with questions or misconceptions on this
subject. Since EPA did not propose to change nor solicit comments on
the existing definition, EPA considers those comments on the definition
to be beyond the scope of the proposal. Nonetheless, EPA provides
clarifications of how it interprets the existing definition to assist
in compliance with the existing rules. The first point of clarification
is how sewage sludge land application sites (i.e., the land) fit into
the definition of Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS).
While the definition does include ``land dedicated for the disposal of
sewage sludge,'' i.e., surface disposal sites, the definition does not
include land application sites. A ``land application site'' is the land
where sewage sludge is used to condition soil or fertilize crops or
vegetation. EPA makes a distinction between disposal at a surface
disposal site and use (also referred to as ``beneficial reuse'') at a
land application site.
Commenters also asked questions about who must apply for a permit.
Industrial treatment works that treat domestic sewage along with
process wastes are TWTDS unless they generate hazardous sludge.
However, EPA determined that it did not have enough information about
these facilities to regulate them under Part 503, and it would be
difficult to find a technical basis for routine case-by-case
permitting. Since there are no Part 503 standards for industrial
treatment works, there are no requirements to put in a permit.
Therefore, even though these facilities are TWTDS, they are not
required to apply for a sewage sludge permit at this time. Today's rule
clarifies this issue by stating that ``all TWTDS whose sewage sludge
use or disposal practice is regulated by Part 503 must submit a permit
application * * *''.
If EPA promulgates technical standards for industrial facilities in
the future, they would then be required to apply for a permit. The
permitting authority can, of course, ask for an application and issue a
permit to an industrial facility if a permit is deemed necessary to
protect public health and the environment (54 FR 18727, 58 FR 9324 &
9406). In those rare situations where an industrial facility treats
domestic sewage and industrial wastewater through totally separate
treatment trains, the facility would be required to apply for a permit
for its domestic sludge, but not for its industrial sludge.
One commenter raised the situation of TWTDS that use a community
septic tank with the effluent routed to a recirculating sand filter.
The commenter questioned whether this type of a facility was a TWTDS
because septic tanks are excluded from the definition of TWTDS. EPA
intended the septic tank exclusion to refer to individual septic tanks
because the Agency did not believe it was necessary to ask for
information from individual homeowners. EPA believes that community
systems that include septic tanks are TWTDS.
Because the type of facility identified by this commenter does not
discharge, it probably would not have an NPDES permit. As a ``sludge-
only'' facility, it is required to submit only limited background
information (Sec. 122.21 (c)(2)(iii) (A) through (E)) when a sewage
sludge standard applies to the facility's use or disposal practice. The
TWTDS is not required to submit any additional application information
unless the permitting authority requests a full permit application.
If there is no Part 503 standard for the facility's use or disposal
practice, the owner/operator of the facility is not automatically
required to submit a permit application. For example, if the sewage
sludge from this septic tank is taken to a POTW, the limited background
information does not have to be submitted because Part 503 does not
apply to this type of disposal method. If the owner/operator of this
facility wanted to stop taking its sewage sludge to a POTW and start
applying it to the land, it would be required to submit the limited
background information to the permitting authority 180 days before
changing its use or disposal practice. In addition, because this
facility is a TWTDS, the permitting authority can require a permit
application at any time if a permit is deemed necessary to protect
public health and the environment.
One commenter stated that his State did not make a distinction
between NPDES and non-NPDES facilities in setting permitting priorities
and would require all TWTDS to submit a full permit application.
Another commenter thought that EPA should not make such a distinction
in its rules. EPA decided to stagger permit applications and require
less information from non-discharging facilities in the February 19,
1993 amendments to Parts 122 and 501 (58 FR 9404). Permitting
authorities have the option to require complete permit applications
from all TWTDS at any time.
EPA received a comment that asked whether a POTW with a non-
discharging lagoon system must apply for a permit. If the lagoon is
part of the
[[Page 42438]]
waste treatment system and there is no sewage sludge being removed,
there is no use or disposal practice to trigger an application
requirement. Before sewage sludge is removed from the lagoon and used
or disposed in a manner regulated by Part 503, however, the TWTDS must
provide limited background information to the permitting authority.
As with any TWTDS, the permitting authority can require a permit
application at any time if a permit is deemed necessary to protect
public health and the environment. Such circumstances may arise where
the permitting authority may ask for an application even after the
sewage sludge has been sitting in the lagoon for several years. The
permitting authority will decide, for example, whether the sewage
sludge lagoon is truly part of the treatment process or a storage
lagoon, or whether the lagoon should be regulated as a surface disposal
site.
The regulatory situation is similar for a discharging lagoon, where
the NPDES permitting authority should already have information about
the treatment process. When the sewage sludge permitting authority is
also the NPDES permitting authority, EPA expects that they would
already know how the TWTDS's sewage sludge should be regulated.
3. Reasons for Separate Form 2A and Form 2S
EPA today publishes two separate forms for municipal wastewater
discharges and for sewage sludge for several reasons. First, the
requirements represented by the two forms differ in their
applicability. The NPDES permit application requirements collected in
Form 2A apply only to POTWs; the sewage sludge information requirements
collected in Form 2S apply to all TWTDS, not just POTWs. Most
facilities that generate, treat, or dispose of sewage sludge are POTWs,
and will be required to submit both application forms. Several thousand
TWTDS, however, do not discharge to surface waters and therefore are
not required to have NPDES permits. Thus, such TWTDS are subject to
sewage sludge requirements (Form 2S) but not to NPDES requirements
(Form 2A).
Second, separate application forms are also appropriate because
wastewater and sewage sludge may be regulated by different permitting
authorities. In 43 States and territories, the NPDES program is
administered at the State level through an EPA-approved NPDES program.
There are currently only 3 States that administer an EPA-approved
sewage sludge program. Therefore, until more States are authorized to
administer the federal sewage sludge program, POTWs in most NPDES
States will obtain NPDES permits from the State permitting authority
(by submitting Form 2A or a similar State form to the State) and sewage
sludge permits from EPA (by submitting Form 2S to the EPA Regional
Office). Separate application forms will facilitate this bifurcated
permitting process. In addition, even when a State sludge permitting
program is approved, the program will not necessarily be administered
by the State's NPDES permitting authority. For example, a POTW in a
State with both NPDES and sewage sludge permitting authority could
receive its NPDES permit from the water pollution control agency and
its sewage sludge permit from a solid waste management agency. Separate
Forms 2A and 2S will also facilitate permitting in this situation.
EPA received three comments supporting the use of separate forms.
One of these commenters emphasized that applicants should be able to
cross reference information submitted on the other form. As discussed
in more detail in section II.G of today's preamble, applicants are
allowed to photocopy other forms, or reference information that they
know was previously submitted to the same permitting authority.
EPA also received several comments that suggested either combining
parts of 2A and 2S or further separating them into segments applicable
to different types of facilities. EPA considered many different types
of form structures before proposing 2A and 2S and reconsidered the
forms based on suggestions from commenters. While no form is ideal for
all situations, EPA believes that the forms accompanying today's rule
represent the best division of information for most applicants.
Authorized States are free to create their own State forms as long as
the forms request the same minimum information.
4. Electronic Application Forms
Consistent with recent amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Agency is developing electronic data submission as an alternative
format for permit application. The use of electronic media should help
to streamline the application process and to reduce the amount of
repetition associated with completing application forms that are
currently available only in hard copy. As previously noted, the
elimination of redundant reporting is one of the goals of today's
rulemaking.
EPA's first step in the submission of electronic data is the
development of an electronic version of the application form. The
Agency has developed such an electronic version, which is available by
contacting the persons listed in the For Further Information Section of
this preamble or on the Internet from the EPA Home Page (www.epa.gov).
The application forms will be made available in Word and Windows Wizard
formats and include instructions that guide the applicant through the
form. Some authorized States are also considering electronic reporting.
EPA believes that providing the forms in an easily manipulated software
will also assist States that want to use electronic permit
applications.
EPA received 21 comments on the issue of electronic reporting. Most
of the commenters agreed with the concept of electronic reporting for
application forms but were concerned about implementation. A few
commenters thought it was not a feasible option for small facilities.
The major implementation issues from the comments include: signature;
hardware; and software needs. Electronic permit application reporting
options range from transmitting data electronically, submitting disk
copies, or submitting hard copy permit applications provided to the
applicant in an electronic format. The most feasible option currently
available involves electronic forms that can be distributed and
completed electronically, and subsequently printed, signed, and
submitted. EPA continues to explore options for electronic permit
application transmission.
C. Endangered Species and Historic Properties
In the December 1995 proposed rule, EPA invited comments related to
information about endangered species and historic properties.
Specifically, if EPA established permit application questions about
endangered and threatened species (listed species) or historic
properties, what kind of information could or should the permit
applicant provide? Would it be appropriate to request that the permit
applicant identify whether there are listed species or historic
properties in the area of the POTW discharge or sewage sludge use or
disposal site? How could or should EPA provide applicants with
flexibility to assist regulatory officials in the consideration of
potential impacts of activities on listed species or historic
properties?
Most commenters stated that EPA should not require any information
in the permit application. The commenters felt strongly that they did
not want applicants to determine what listed species or historic
properties would be affected by their discharge. The
[[Page 42439]]
commenters felt this was information that is more easily obtained by
the permitting authority.
EPA is not requiring information about listed species or historic
properties in today's rule. In many permitting situations, this
information may already reside with the permitting authority and
therefore EPA believes it would be of little use to require all
applicants to submit this information. However, some permit applicants
may already have information regarding listed species and historic
properties or may be better able than the permitting authority to
obtain such information. In such cases, permitting authorities may
require such information from applicants on a case-by-case basis.
EPA is also working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop procedures
to more closely coordinate efforts to protect water quality and listed
species including the use of Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultations for EPA-issued permits and other Federal actions where
appropriate.
D. Definitions
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to revise the definition of the
term ``POTW,'' as defined in 40 CFR Part 122 to conform more exactly
with the definition of the term at 40 CFR Part 403. The proposed
change, however, appeared to create confusion. EPA received 12 comments
on this issue. Several commenters agreed that the definitions should be
consistent. Most of the commenters raised various issues that they
thought might be affected by the changed definition. One commenter
thought that the Part 403 definition was too confusing and should not
be used. Another thought EPA should consider that other federal
regulatory programs, such as hazardous waste management programs,
include references to ``POTWs'' and could be affected by a change in
the NPDES definition. After considering the comments, EPA has decided
that it is not necessary to change the definition because the existing
definitions are not inconsistent (even though the Part 403 definition
contains more detail related to Pretreatment Program requirements).
Therefore, today's rule does not change the definition of the term
``POTW'' in Part 122.
E. Requirements Concerning the Use of Forms (Secs. 122.21(a), (c), (d)
and (f))
EPA today finalizes revisions to the existing general application
requirements for all NPDES permittees, which can be satisfied by the
use of Forms 2A and 2S by applicants for EPA-issued permits. Today's
rule does not require applicants using these forms to use Form 1,
because the same information is requested on Forms 2A and 2S. The final
rule substantially incorporates the requirements of Sec. 122.21(f) for
Form 1 into the requirements of Secs. 122.21(j) for Form 2A and
122.21(q) for Form 2S.
On December 11, 1996 (61 FR 65268), EPA proposed a rule to
streamline various parts of the NPDES regulations (NPDES streamlining
proposal). One of the changes proposed would consolidate the
requirements of Secs. 122.1(d)(1) and 122.21(d)(3) and move them to a
new paragraph, Sec. 122.21(a)(2). Both of these sections dealt with
application requirements and were duplicative. EPA believed
Sec. 122.21(a) would be a more appropriate location because that
subsection pertains to all permit applicants, whereas Sec. 122.21(d)
applies to permit reapplications. Section 122.1 is also not a
particularly suitable location because it concerns the scope of the
NPDES program and not application requirements. EPA proposed to retain
the current Sec. 122.21(a) regulation in new Sec. 122.21(a)(1). The
Agency proposed to remove Sec. 122.21(d)(3) and reserve the section for
future use.
In the proposal for today's rule, EPA proposed changes in the
application requirements (paragraph (d)(3)) to reference the new
application requirements for POTWs and TWTDS (Secs. 122.21(j) and (q))
and Forms 2A and 2S. To avoid confusion and to simplify the changes,
EPA decided to make all the changes to Secs. 122.21(a) through (d) in
today's final rule. Other changes in the NPDES streamlining proposal
will be finalized in a later notice. EPA received only favorable
comments on these changes in both proposals. Therefore, today's rule
deletes Sec. 122.21(d)(3). The requirements in existing Sec. 122.21(a)
have been moved to a new Sec. 122.21(a)(1) and modified to clarify that
a sludge-only facility must submit a permit for its use or disposal
practice only if the practice is regulated by Part 503.
New Sec. 122.21(a)(2) contains the requirements previously included
in Secs. 122.1(d)(1) and 122.21(d)(3). One commenter on the NPDES
streamlining proposal thought that the wording for the storm water-
related application forms needed clarification. This language was
simply moved from Sec. 122.26(c)(1) and was not changed in the
proposal. However, EPA agrees that some of the commenter's suggestions
provide clarification and the language of Sec. 122.21(a)(2)(i)(G) has
been modified accordingly. This section is finalized as proposed in the
NPDES streamlining proposal, with a few minor changes that clarify who
is required to submit each form.
As mentioned above in section II.B.4, EPA received numerous
comments that support the concept of electronically submitted forms.
Section 122.21(a)(2)(ii) explains that electronic forms can be used if
approved by EPA or an NPDES authorized State.
Both the municipal/sewage permit applications proposal and the
NPDES streamlining proposal contained revisions to Sec. 122.21(c)(2) to
reflect the changed location of the application requirements. Section
122.21(c)(2) of today's rule reflects the changes mentioned above to
Secs. 122.21(a) and (d). EPA is also deleting existing
Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(i) and renumbering the remaining paragraphs of
Sec. 122.21(c)(2). This provision was intended to allow the permitting
authority to obtain applications for sewage sludge incinerators and
others who requested site-specific pollutant limits before
authorization for other sewage sludge use or disposal practices because
these permits would take the most time to issue and EPA believed that
incinerators pose the greatest risk to public health. However, there
have been few requests for site-specific permits. In addition, changes
to Part 503 (60 FR 54771) make the incineration standard totally self-
implementing along with the rest of the rule, i.e., the standard must
be met whether or not a permit is issued. Therefore, this paragraph is
no longer necessary. As described in Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(iii), the
Director may require permit applications from any TWTDS at any time if
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
EPA received a comment on Sec. 122.21(q)(8) that refers to existing
Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(iii)(C), now renumbered as Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(ii)(C).
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) lists the limited background information requested
of non-NPDES TWTDS. In Sec. 122.21(q)(8), if sewage sludge meets the
``exceptional quality'' (EQ) requirements, no additional information is
required about land application sites or facilities that further treat
the sewage sludge. As pointed out by the commenter,
Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(ii)(C) should also be modified to require less
information for ``EQ'' sewage sludge to provide consistency with the
full permit application requirements. Therefore, today's rule modifies
Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(ii)(C) and does not require the applicant to provide
the name and address of facilities where sewage sludge is sent for
treatment or disposal
[[Page 42440]]
and the location of land application sites if the sewage sludge meets
the ``EQ'' requirements.
F. Application Requirements for POTWs (40 CFR 122.21(j))
The regulations in Sec. 122.21 (j) provide the application
requirements for POTWs. Submittal of a complete Form 2A satisfies the
application requirements of this section. POTWs may also satisfy the
requirements of this section by completing a State-issued version of
the form which has been approved by the State Director.
In the proposal for today's rule, EPA acknowledged concerns
relating to redundant reporting raised by State and municipal
commenters during consultation. EPA proposed the introductory paragraph
of Sec. 122.21(j) to allow the Director to waive any requirement in
paragraph (j) if the Director has access to substantially identical
information. EPA solicited comment on this approach and other ways to
provide the permitting authority with discretion to waive particular
information requirements where he or she determines that such
information is not necessary for the application.
EPA received numerous responses to the waiver question. Most of the
commenters agreed that the Director should be allowed to waive any
requirement in paragraph (j) if he or she already has access to the
information. Several commenters also stated that applicants should be
able to reference previously submitted information that is still
accurate rather than resubmit the data. For example, commenters
mentioned that much of the information required in the permit
application has already been submitted to the same permitting authority
in the permittee's reports.
In response, EPA has modified today's final rule to allow
applicants to provide information by referencing (in their application)
how and when the applicant previously submitted the information.
Applicants should be very specific when referencing information so the
permitting authority has no difficulty in locating the previous
submission. Permitting authorities should recognize the need to keep
information available for future action and to ensure the availability
of information submitted to various departments. All referenced
information should also be incorporated into the administrative record
for the permit application.
Many of the commenters also felt that EPA should go further than
the proposal and allow a waiver for any requirement that an authorized
NPDES State feels is not necessary for the application. EPA has
considered this option, and has modified Sec. 122.21(j) of today's rule
to provide States with the ability to waive any requirement of
Sec. 122.21(j) that the State believes is not of material concern for a
specific permit, if approved by the Regional Administrator.
In developing this change from the proposal, EPA attempted to
anticipate and avoid confusion in implementation. The primary actors
involved in the process for request and approval of waivers are
authorized NPDES States and EPA Regions. The permit applicant would be
most significantly impacted by this process. EPA intends that, if the
authorized NPDES State complies with (and the permit applicant is
mindful of) the waiver approval process, then the permit applicant will
avoid any adverse legal consequences related to the permit application
phase. The two areas of concern are administrative continuation of
expired permits (and ``completeness'' of re-applications), and the
scope of the authorization to discharge, also referred to as the
``permit shield.''
The goal of the application requirements is to provide the permit
writer with the information necessary to develop appropriate NPDES
permits consistent with requirements of the CWA. The ``permit shield''
provided by Clean Water Act section 402(k) is predicated on the permit
writer's presumed knowledge of the discharge. If a permit application
contains information about specific pollutants, waste streams, or
processes, then the permit writer is legally presumed to have knowledge
about them. The ``permit shield'' applies whether or not the permit
writer imposes regulatory controls in the permit based on that presumed
knowledge. The Agency believes that the application information
required under today's rule is necessary for the permit writer to
consider in developing a permit, so a case-specific waiver may affect
the scope of knowledge that EPA presumes of the permit writer. If the
waiver approval processes are not followed and the permit applicant
does not submit required information, then the scope of the permit
shield is questionable. If the waiver approval processes are followed,
the scope of the permit shield will not be affected.
When the permitting authority wishes to waive the submission of
information, the Director must request approval for the waiver from the
Regional Administrator. This request must include documentation that
provides justification for the waiver. Section 123.43(b) has been
amended to include provisions for this waiver of information. If a
waiver is approved by EPA, the justification for the waiver must appear
in the permit fact sheet for each facility receiving the waiver. A new
paragraph (9) has been added to Sec. 124.8(b) to include this fact
sheet requirement.
As with the scope of the permit shield, the waiver opportunity may
affect the validity of authorization to discharge under an expired
permit. In order to discharge under an expired permit, a permittee must
submit a timely and complete application for renewal prior to
expiration. The waiver opportunities under today's rule may affect the
determination of whether an application is ``complete.'' EPA has added
a new paragraph (e)(2) to Sec. 122.21(e) to clarify the completeness
requirements. If a State submits its waiver request within 210 days of
permit expiration and EPA either approves the waiver or does not act on
the waiver within 30 days, the permit application is considered
``complete.'' If EPA disapproves the waiver, the permit application
based on the waiver is not ``complete.''
EPA plans to develop guidance, in consultation with States and
other interested stakeholders, to assist the Regions in making
determinations for waivers. EPA expects to have this guidance finalized
within approximately two years. Until this guidance is completed, EPA
and the States must work together to decide on appropriate waivers. The
performance partnership agreement process is one forum for determining
such appropriateness.
1. Permit-as-a-Shield
Section 402(k) of the CWA, also known as the ``permit shield''
provision, provides that compliance with an NPDES permit shall be
deemed compliance, for purposes of Section 309 and 505 enforcement,
with Section 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403 of the CWA (except for any
standard imposed under Section 307 for toxic pollutants injurious to
human health). In response to questions raised regarding EPA's
interpretation of the scope of the ``shield'' associated with NPDES
permits under the CWA, EPA issued a policy statement on July 1, 1994,
to describe the Agency's policy on the scope of the authorization by
EPA to discharge under an NPDES permit and the ``shield'' thus
associated with permit authorization.
As part of an application for an individual NPDES permit, EPA
requires that an applicant provide certain information on its facility.
Previous application requirements for municipal
[[Page 42441]]
discharges focused primarily on the operation and treatment processes
at the municipal treatment works, although some quantitative
information is also required.
Historically, EPA has viewed the permit, together with material
submitted during the application process and information in the public
record accompanying the permit, as important bases for an authorization
to discharge under CWA section 402. The availability of the section
402(k) shield is predicated upon the issuance of an NPDES permit and a
permittee's full compliance with all applicable application
requirements, any additional information requests made by the permit
authority and any applicable notification requirements under 40 CFR
Secs. 122.41(l) and 122.42, as well as any additional requirements
specified in the permit.
On April 11, 1995, EPA reissued the memorandum to clarify that a
discharger must provide all information in writing for the permit
record in order to obtain the authorization to discharge and the
``shield'' provided by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit. EPA explained that a permit provides authorization and
therefore a shield for the following pollutants resulting from facility
processes, waste streams and operations that have been clearly
identified in writing in the permit application process when discharged
from specified outfalls:
(1) Pollutants specifically limited in the permit or pollutants
which the permit, fact sheet, or administrative record explicitly
identify as controlled through indicator parameters (of course,
authorization is only provided to discharge such pollutants within the
limits and subject to the conditions set forth in the permit);
(2) Pollutants for which the permit authority has not established
limits or other permit conditions, but which are specifically
identified in writing as present in facility discharges during the
permit application process and contained in the administrative record
which is available to the public; and
(3) Pollutants not identified as present but which are constituents
of waste streams, operations or processes that were clearly identified
in writing during the permit application process (the permit, of
course, may explicitly prohibit or limit the scope of such discharges)
and contained in the administrative record which is available to the
public.
With respect to subparts 2 and 3 of the permit authorization
described above, EPA recognizes that a discharger may make changes to
its permitted facility (which contribute pollutants to the effluent at
a permitted outfall) during the effective period of the NPDES permit.
Pollutants associated with these changes (provided they are within the
scope of the operations identified in the permit application) are also
authorized provided the discharger has complied in a timely manner with
all applicable notification requirements, assuming the permit does not
otherwise limit or prohibit such discharges. See 40 CFR 122.41(l) and
122.42(a)&(b). Section 122.42(b) requires that POTWs must provide
adequate notice, including information on the quality and quantity of
discharges to the POTW and anticipated impacts on the quantity or
quality of effluent discharged by the POTW, of new introductions of
pollutants by indirect dischargers into the POTW and any substantial
change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced by
sources introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of permit
issuance.
Notwithstanding any pollutants that may be authorized pursuant to
subparts 1 and 2 above, an NPDES permit does not authorize the
discharge of any pollutants associated with waste streams, operations,
or processes which existed at the time of the permit application and
which were not clearly identified during the application process.
In the policy statement, EPA committed to revise the NPDES permit
application regulations for both municipal and industrial discharges,
so as to ensure that applicants would have the responsibility to
characterize more fully the nature of their effluents and the
contributions of their effluents to receiving waters. EPA stated that,
in addressing this issue, it would review its position on the scope of
the permit shield provided by section 402(k).
Generally, the discharger is in the best position to know the
nature of its discharge and potential sources of pollutants.
Consequently, requiring as full a disclosure as technically possible in
the permit application is one option EPA considered in light of the
protection afforded the discharger by the permit shield. In the case of
POTWs, however, providing a permit shield only for pollutant discharges
fully and completely characterized in the permit application could
represent a significant burden on POTWs if they were required to
identify every pollutant discharged due to the wide variation in
potential pollutant contributions into POTW sewer systems from
industrial users and residential dischargers, both in terms of
pollutant parameters and volumes. Narrowing the scope of the shield and
consequent expansion of potential liability would likely raise the cost
associated with the failure to anticipate, detect, and provide
information on these discharges.
EPA was concerned that, using the 1973 application form, permitting
authorities would not always receive the necessary information about an
applicant's discharge to develop adequate permits consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. In practice, permitting authorities have been
requiring supplemental information in order to write credible permits.
Today's rule updates the POTW discharge application requirements and
Sec. 122.21(j), to provide necessary information to permit writers and
to streamline the permitting process by ensuring that the information
needed from most applicants is consolidated onto a single form.
Fourteen commenters responded on the issue of the permit
application requirements and the permittee's responsibility to fully
characterize its waste stream for permit shield protection under the
1995 policy. All but two of the commenters thought that the
requirements did not need to be expanded to include more information
than the Sec. 122.21(j) requirements of today's rule. Several
commenters thought that permitting authorities already have access to a
great deal of discharge data and have the authority to ask for
additional data when necessary. In the commenters' view, these
information sources, such as pretreatment program POTW annual reports,
provide enough information for a permit writer to determine what
pollutants can be expected in a POTW's influent from industrial
sources, and this information falls within the boundaries of the
permit-as-a-shield policy. EPA agrees that some required information
that may be found in reports previously submitted to the permitting
agency falls within the permit-as-a-shield policy. Today's rule allows
reports to be referenced by the permittee in the application form
provided they are incorporated into the administrative record for the
application.
The proposal for this rule requested comment on whether EPA should
ask for information on beach closings, fish kills, or citizens'
complaints. Commenters did not believe that asking for any of this
information would provide any additional benefit to the permit writer.
Two of the commenters thought that a general question such as ``Does
the permittee have any other information on pollutants not otherwise
requested on the forms?'' might be
[[Page 42442]]
useful. EPA does not at this time believe additional generic questions
are necessary on the permit application because the permitting
authority already has access to much of this information.
EPA has concluded that the application requirements in
Sec. 122.21(j) of today's rule are sufficient to provide the permitting
authority with a reasonable characterization of a permittee's discharge
for protection under the permit-as-a-shield policy. Accordingly, the
application requirements have not been expanded to include any further
questions on beach closings, fish kills, or citizen complaints nor have
the requirements been expanded to include a general question on other
pollutants.
Since the initial proposal, questions have arisen regarding
interpretation of one aspect of the Agency's permit-as-a-shield policy,
specifically, applicability of the permit shield to discharges from
outfalls identified in the permit application, but not identified or
discussed in the permit. Because today's rule requires in the
application specific identification of outfalls, including outfalls
within the collection system (upstream from the POTW treatment plant),
the Agency provides clarification and explicit notice to affected
parties of its interpretation of the permit shield, as explained below.
This interpretation further clarifies the Agency's April 11, 1995,
policy memorandum addressing the shield.
EPA believes that the protection afforded by the permit-as-a-shield
provision does not apply to discharges from outfalls or other locations
not identified in the permit. EPA believes this interpretation best
effectuates the requirements of CWA section 301, which specifies
pollutant control standards applicable to discharges. EPA believes that
a permit applicant may reasonably expect a permit ``shield'' when the
permitting authority applies its technical expertise to derive permit
conditions and effluent limitations based on a permit application that
fully discloses the nature of the effluent to be discharged. Permittees
cannot, however, reasonably expect a permit ``shield'' for discharges
from outfalls identified in a permit application, but not specifically
authorized in a permit. There needs to be some explicit acknowledgment
by the permitting authority that discharge from that specific outfall
is permissible. Such a discharge would be subject to the technology-
based and water quality-based requirements of the CWA. This is
distinguished from the Agency's approach for pollutants identified in
the application but not limited in the permit because here it is clear
that the permitting authority, by choosing at least one pollutant to
measure or limit, chose not to establish limits for other pollutants.
This aspect of the Agency's permit-as-a-shield policy is
particularly relevant for ``emergency'' or ``accidental'' discharges
from locations within municipal sewage collection systems not
identified in the permit which would not automatically receive the
protection of the permit-as-a-shield provision. Rather, the legal
status of these discharges is specifically related to the permit
language and the circumstances under which the discharge occurs. The
Agency notes that NPDES permit regulations do provide limited relief
under the bypass and upset provisions of 40 CFR 122.44(m) and (n),
respectively, for such discharges. The Agency is currently developing
guidance that would clarify the applicability of the bypass and upset
provisions to such discharges.
2. Basic Application Information
The December 1995 proposal would have required all POTW applicants
to provide the information requested in Sec. 122.21(j)(1) and the 18
questions in the Basic Application Information part of Form 2A. Many
commenters suggested that the requirements were not appropriate for
smaller facilities and would require these smaller facilities to
collect data that might not be utilized in the permitting process.
Based on these comments, EPA has restructured the application
requirements and Form 2A questions to request less information from
smaller facilities. EPA believes the requirements that remain in
today's rule will result in the collection of the minimum information a
permitting authority needs to issue a permit meeting CWA requirements.
In today's final rule, the basic application requirements in
proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1) have been divided into two sections. Section
122.21(j)(1) contains the requirements for all applicants and requests
very limited facility and process information, and 122.21(j)(2)
contains additional questions and limited monitoring information. EPA
carefully examined the proposed requirements for all facilities and, in
conjunction with the comments received, determined the final rule
requirements found in Sec. 122.21(j)(1) for very small facilities. Many
commenters stated that very small facilities would be able to provide
basic information, such as location, discharge methods, and type of
treatment. Additional information, such as inflow and infiltration,
topographic maps, and process flow diagrams may be more difficult to
provide because these facilities lack the resources to provide this
information. EPA evaluated each application requirement to determine
the impact on the application and permitting process. As discussed
earlier in this rulemaking, EPA determined that facilities discharging
less than 0.1 mgd account for only 0.4% of the total flow from all
POTWs. Additionally, these small facilities are often ``package''
systems receiving mainly residential sewage discharges. The basic
nature of these facilities and their small impact in terms of flow on
receiving waters, supported the decision to reduce the application
requirements. The information requested in Sec. 122.21(j)(1) is the
minimum information a permit writer needs to write a permit that
complies with the CWA.
Many paragraphs from proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1) have been
renumbered in today's final rule. The addition of Sec. 122.21(j)(2) to
the proposed rule also causes the other paragraphs of Sec. 122.21(j) to
be renumbered, e.g., proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2) is Sec. 122.21(j)(3) in
today's final rule.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(i) requests treatment plant identification
information. Section 122.21(j)(1)(ii) requests information about the
permit applicant which may describe the owner or operator of the
facility and not the facility itself. No comments were received on
either of these sections, and they are unchanged from the proposed
rule.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(iii) asks the applicant to provide permit
numbers of any existing environmental permits that have been issued to
the facility. One commenter requested clarification of the scope of
this requirement because it was unclear in the proposal whether the
applicant should provide information on all permits at the facility.
The purpose of the requirement is to obtain information on permits
related to the treatment plant operation and maintenance. EPA intended
to include only environmental permits related to the permittee's
treatment plant or collection system operations, e.g., under RCRA, UIC,
CAA, etc. EPA does not seek information regarding permits under OSHA,
general construction, or other permits that do not implement federal
environmental laws. The requirement remains in the final rule.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(iv) requires the applicant to list the
municipalities and populations served by the POTW. The POTW may serve
several areas in addition to the municipal jurisdiction in which the
POTW is located. Systems which discharge into a larger POTW are also
known as satellite collection
[[Page 42443]]
systems. This section asks the POTW to provide information on the
satellite collection systems served. If known, the POTW would indicate
the type of collection system used by the satellite municipalities and
whether the municipality owns or maintains any part of the collection
system.
The permit writer needs to know what areas are served and the
actual population served in order to calculate the potential domestic
sewage loading to the treatment plant. The information on the community
served by the NPDES permittee is also useful for providing notice and
public comment for permit reissuance and for public education. One
commenter requested clarification of the term ``population served.'' By
this term, EPA means the number of users of the system. EPA has
expanded this requirement from the proposal in order to obtain a more
complete picture of the area served by the POTW. The additional
information on the satellite systems will be used by the permit writer
to identify areas where there is a potential for unpermitted discharges
in the collection system prior to the treatment plant. The identified
areas may necessitate further investigation.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(v) requires the applicant to report whether
the POTW is located in Indian country or discharges to a receiving
water that flows through Indian country. This information enables the
permit writer to identify the proper permitting authority and
applicable requirements, including applicable water quality standards.
Today's action also incorporates the definition of ``Indian country''
found at 18 U.S.C. section 1151. The term ``Indian country''
encompasses more area than the term ``Federal Indian Reservation,''
which was the term originally proposed. For the purposes of determining
the proper permitting authority, the term ``Indian country'' is more
appropriate because, even in States authorized to administer the NPDES
program, EPA is generally the proper permitting authority in ``Indian
country'' unless a Tribe is authorized to administer the program.
EPA received one comment on the information requirement regarding
location relative to Federal Indian Reservations. The commenter felt
that it might be difficult for new permittees to obtain information on
discharges that might eventually flow through a Federal Indian
Reservation. Readily available maps such as topographic and road maps
often identify Federal Indian Reservations and other areas of Indian
country, so in many cases a permittee should be able to easily obtain
this information. Remaining questions should be directed to EPA
Regional offices. The requirement is renumbered from proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xii) to Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(v).
Section 122.21(j)(1)(vi) requires the applicant to report the
facility's design flow rate, annual average daily flow rate, and
maximum daily inflow rate for each of the past three years. This
information enables the permitting authority to calculate limits
appropriate to the POTW, to alert the permitting authority to the need
for special permit conditions or facility expansion, and to compare
design and actual flows. Two commenters suggested this information is
available from the facility's discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). EPA
disagrees that this information is universally reported in all POTW
DMRs but, as discussed previously, the permitting authority may waive
submission of information already available to it or the applicant can
reference the DMR if it contains the required information. This
requirement remains unchanged from the proposal but it is renumbered
from proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(v) to Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(vi).
Section 122.21(j)(1)(vii) requires information on the type of sewer
collection system used by the facility. The applicant must identify
whether the collection system is a separate sanitary sewer system or a
combined sewer system (conveying both storm water and sanitary wastes).
The applicant must also estimate the percent of sewer line that each
type comprises. Knowledge of the type of collection system enables the
permit writer to determine whether the permit should include
requirements based on the provisions of the 1994 CSO Control Policy (59
FR 18688). The current application form, Standard Form A, requests that
the applicant provide the length of the collection system. Today's rule
does not include this requirement because EPA does not believe that
such information is useful to the permit writer. As noted previously,
however, the application requirements do require identification of
known outfalls and information about flow contributions from satellite
municipalities. The latter information will be useful to identify areas
within the collection system that would be particularly vulnerable to
excessive flows. No comments were received on this section, and it is
unchanged from the proposal but is renumbered from proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(vi) to Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(vii).
Section 122.21(j)(1)(viii) requires general information regarding
the disposition of treated wastes, whether discharged to waters of the
United States, as well as to other destinations. This information
enables the permit writer to account for all wastewater that enters the
POTW plant, regardless of whether or not it is discharged directly to
waters of the United States. From a watershed permitting standpoint,
permitting authorities may use this information to identify: flows to
surface impoundments; land application sites; underground injection;
and flows that individually or collectively may have an impact on the
watershed, whether or not they are discharged directly into waters of
the U.S.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(viii)(A) of today's final rule has been
modified slightly to clarify that information must be submitted about
all types of outfalls throughout the sewer collection system as well as
the POTW plant, including treated effluent, bypasses, CSOs, and
constructed ``emergency'' outfalls within a separate sanitary sewer
system.
If any effluent is discharged to a surface impoundment that is
designed to avoid discharges to waters of the U.S., the applicant must
report the location of each such surface impoundment, the annual
average daily volume discharged to such surface impoundment(s), and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent. If effluent is
applied to the land, the applicant must provide the site location, the
site size, and the average daily volume of effluent applied. The
applicant must also state whether land application is continuous or
intermittent. This information alerts the permit writer to the
potential for point source discharges to arise from land application
sites under exceptional circumstances, such as cold weather or high
volume discharges, or from overflowing surface impoundments.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(viii)(D) requires the applicant to report
whether wastewater is discharged to another treatment plant, the means
by which the wastewater is transported, the average daily flow rate to
that other facility, and information identifying the receiving
facility. The applicant must also identify the person (owner or
operator) transporting the discharge, if other than the applicant. The
permit writer needs this information in order to track the wastewater
and verify the transfer. One commenter questioned the need for this
requirement due to the infrequent transfer of discharges among
treatment works. Informal stakeholder comments indicate that this is a
common practice at many POTWs, and EPA retains this requirement in
today's rule.
Section 122.21(j)(1)(viii) also requires information on other types
of disposal, such as underground percolation or injection, in paragraph
(E). These types of disposal practices may result in the
[[Page 42444]]
transfer of pollutants to waters of the United States through
underground flows and thus are of interest both to the permit writer in
writing a watershed-based permit and to the permitting authority in
designing watershed protection strategies. Section 122.21(j)(1)(viii)
remains unchanged from the proposal but is renumbered from proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xi) to Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(viii).
3. Additional Information for Applicants With a Design Flow Greater
Than or Equal to 0.1 mgd
Section 122.21(j)(2) contains additional requirements for
applicants with a design flow greater than or equal to 0.1 mgd. EPA
believes these requirements are necessary to account for the more
complex nature of these more sophisticated facilities.
Section 122.21(j)(2)(i) requires information on estimated amount of
inflow and infiltration (I&I) and steps taken and proposed to minimize
it. Inflow is water other than sewage water that enters a sewerage
system from sources such as roof leaders, cellar drains, yard drains,
area drains, foundation drains, drains from springs and swampy areas,
manhole covers, cross connections between storm sewers and sanitary
sewers, catch basins, cooling towers, surface runoff, street wash
waters, or drainage. Infiltration is water other than waste water that
enters a sewerage system (including sewer service connections) from the
ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections,
or manholes. These definitions are found at 40 CFR 35.2005.
Sixteen comments were received on this requirement, with most
commenters wishing to have the requirement deleted. The commenters felt
this information is difficult to quantify and could be overly
burdensome for the permittee to obtain. This requirement has been
eliminated for facilities under 0.1 mgd. However, for larger facilities
EPA disagrees with this position. EPA does not expect facilities to
complete extensive studies to provide the amount of I&I but rather to
provide a best estimate based on average wet and dry weather flows.
This estimate is used by the permit writer to determine if special
conditions, such as I&I control programs, are necessary to reduce the
unintended flow beyond the design capacity of the collection system or
treatment capacity of the POTW plant. The information also helps
identify portions of the collection system with potential for overflow
or unplanned, untreated discharges. EPA understands that most
facilities will have some amount of I&I entering their collection
system and thus treatment plants. The Agency does not envision that
every POTW will need special permit conditions to control I&I, for
example, in cases where I&I is not excessive. The requirement applies
only to facilities with a design flow equal to or greater than 0.1 mgd
and has been renumbered from Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(vii) to
Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(i).
Section 122.21(j)(2)(ii) requires the applicant to provide a
topographic map (or other map if topographic map is unavailable)
extending at least one mile from the boundaries of the plant, and
including information on the layout of the treatment plant and all unit
processes; intake and discharge structures; wells, springs, and other
surface water bodies in the vicinity; sewage sludge management
facilities; and the location(s) at which hazardous waste enters the
treatment plant by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
Several commenters questioned the elements of the topographic map
requirement stating that a topographic map containing this much
information may be difficult to read. The contents of the map are
necessary for the permit writer to understand the geography of the
collection system and treatment facility and the potential for various
water quality impacts due to the location of the treatment plant, the
outfalls, and other structures and pipes. A topographic map helps the
permitting authority identify nearby discharge sources or sensitive
areas which may be necessary for a watershed-based approach to
permitting. The map must include the major process units and primary
structures that carry the wastewater to and from the plant. The
permittee may provide another map if the topographic map is
unavailable. Permittees may also provide a copy of an original
topographic map. The requirement applies only to facilities with a
design flow equal to or greater than 0.1 mgd and has been renumbered
from Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(viii) to Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(ii).
This requirement is similar to section Sec. 122.21(q)(5) of this
rule that requires a topographic map for TWTDS. A facility required to
comply with both sets of application requirements can use the same map
if the map if the maps cover the same basic area.
Section 122.21(j)(2)(iii) requires the applicant to submit a
process flow diagram or schematic, together with a narrative
description. The permit writer uses this information to identify bypass
and other ``emergency'' outfall structures and develop applicable
permit conditions. Of the commenters on this requirement, half wished
to keep it and half wanted it deleted. One commenter who wished to
delete the requirement believed a more simplified schematic drawing
should suffice. EPA does not intend this requirement to be complex.
Instead, this drawing is meant to be a simple drawing of the basic unit
processes with intake and discharge points labeled, as well as the
design water flow identified for each component process.
This diagram requirement has been slightly modified to ask for
information about backup power and identification of redundancy in the
applicant's system in order to consolidate information and reduce the
number of questions on the application form. Information on backup
generators was included in the bypass section of proposed Form 2A but
inadvertently left out of the proposed rule language. EPA has added
information on backup generators to this part of the final rule because
the separate bypass section (from the proposed rule) has been
eliminated.
Facilities under 0.1 mgd are not required to submit a process flow
diagram. The requirement applies only to facilities with a design flow
greater than or equal to 0.1 mgd and has been renumbered from
Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(ix) to Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(iii).
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(x) would have required information about
bypasses, which are intentional diversions of waste streams from any
portion of the treatment facility. The proposed rule would have
required information about frequency, duration, and volume of bypass
incidents. The Agency removed this from the final rule because it is
already required by the bypass regulations at Sec. 122.41(m). The
bypass regulations set forth clear reporting and notification
guidelines for each bypass incident.
Section 122.21(j)(2)(iv) requires the applicant to provide
information about scheduled facility improvements. Improvements to the
facility may change its flow or removal efficiency, necessitating a
permit modification. The permit writer may modify the permit when the
improvement is complete, or may include alternate limits in the permit
that would take effect upon completion of the improvement. Comments
favored keeping the information on facility improvements. One commenter
suggested that submitting this type of information would help keep
different groups in the same permitting agency informed of anticipated
treatment plant upgrades. The requirement applies only to facilities
with a design flow equal to or greater than 0.1 mgd and has been
[[Page 42445]]
renumbered from Sec. 122.21(j)(1)(xii) to Sec. 122.21(j)(2)(iv).
The existing application form, Standard Form A, requested certain
information about required improvements including information on dates
for completion of the preliminary plan, completion of the final plan,
awarding of a contract, and site acquisition. Standard Form A also
required the applicant to identify the authority imposing the
improvement and the general and specific action codes. The Agency has
deleted this requirement because permit writers have indicated that
this information is unnecessary for writing the permit. Several
commenters specifically endorsed removing this extra information from
the final application requirements.
4. Information on Effluent Discharges
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(2) has been renumbered in today's rule as
Sec. 122.21(j)(3). This section requires all POTWs that discharge
effluent to waters of the United States to provide specific information
for each outfall through which effluent is discharged to surface
waters, excluding CSO outfalls and constructed ``emergency'' outfalls.
This information will be reported in questions 9, 10, and 11 of the
Basic Application Information part of Form 2A. The applicant is
required to submit specific information for each outfall.
Section 122.21(j)(3)(i) requires general information about each
outfall. The applicant must specify the outfall number, location,
latitude and longitude, distance from shore and below surface, average
daily flow, information about seasonal or periodic discharges, and
information about diffusers at the outfall. EPA enters the latitude and
longitude points into the water quality data base STORET and into the
Permit Compliance System. Maps of the location of water discharges are
developed to examine the relationship between NPDES outfalls and other
areas of concern, such as drinking water intake points or sensitive
ecosystems. This information is also used to establish water quality-
based effluent limits appropriate for the particular receiving water.
The locational data requested by this question also supports the
watershed protection approach because it provides State and Federal
environmental managers with information they need to geographically
locate discharge points.
Latitude and longitude must be reported to the nearest second. This
is consistent with EPA's Locational Data Policy, see ``Locational Data
Policy Implementation Guidance, Guide to the Policy (March 1992).'' In
accordance with this Policy, all latitude/longitude measurements in
Agency data collection should have accuracies of better than 25 meters
(i.e., roughly one second). One commenter disagreed with this
requirement, stating that many facilities simply ``guess'' on this
information so it is not accurate. However, EPA believes this
information is vital to the permit writer's locating each discharge
point. All of Sec. 122.21(j)(3)(i) remains unchanged from the proposal.
Section 122.21(j)(3)(ii) solicits information that describes and
identifies the receiving waters into which each outfall discharges.
Information about the type of receiving water is useful to the permit
writer because mixing zones and wasteload allocations may be calculated
differently for different types of receiving waters.
This provision also requests the name of the watershed, the Soil
Conservation Service watershed code, the name of the State management
basin (if applicable), and the United States Geological Survey
hydrologic code. This locational information supports the Watershed
Protection Approach by providing Federal and State environmental
managers with a means of locating dischargers within the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service watershed categorization system, a State's river
basin categorization system, and the U.S. Geological Survey cataloging
scheme. Some States, as well as EPA Regions, are implementing basin
management approaches to watershed protection and will use the
information requested by this question to issue permits on a watershed
basis.
Several commenters disagreed with this request for information,
stating that many facilities will not be able to provide it with their
applications. In response, though EPA believes this is important
information for State and regional authorities, this information
request is no longer mandatory. The permit applicant needs to provide
this information only if known.
Section 122.21(j)(3)(iii)(A) requires information on the level of
treatment expected for discharges from each outfall. The CWA requires
POTWs, with some exceptions, to achieve pollutant reductions to a level
based upon secondary treatment prior to discharge. Secondary treatment
is defined at 40 CFR 133.102 in terms of five-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH. Part
133 allows adjustments to the secondary treatment requirements for
POTWs that meet certain criteria. In addition, some POTWs are subject
to requirements for ``treatment equivalent to secondary treatment,'' as
described in Section 133.105. Finally, some POTWs may need more
advanced levels of treatment to meet water quality-based effluent
limits for certain pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorous.
This provision requires data on design removal efficiencies for
BOD5 and TSS. Information on these parameters is necessary
for the permit writer to set pollutant limits that accurately reflect
the pollutant removal that the POTW can achieve. It may also alert the
permitting authority to the need for improvements to the treatment
facility. The only comment on this section stated that this information
may not be appropriate for lagoon systems because design removal
efficiencies for BOD5 and TSS are not readily available or
pertinent to these systems. EPA disagrees with this commenter's
statement that basic design information is not pertinent to lagoon
systems. All POTWs should have a design BOD5 and TSS removal
efficiency. The requirement is not changed from the proposal.
Section 122.21(j)(3)(iii)(B) requires information on disinfection,
which commonly occurs through chlorination. Many POTWs also
dechlorinate their effluent prior to discharge because excessive free
chlorine in a wastewater discharge can cause aquatic toxicity in the
receiving water. No comments were received on this section and it
remains as proposed.
5. Effluent Monitoring for Specific Parameters
The purpose of Sec. 122.21(j) and Form 2A is to provide the permit
writer with the minimum information necessary to issue an NPDES permit
that contains effluent limitations and conditions consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. EPA recognizes that the quality of a POTW's
effluent depends on several factors, such as the number and type of
industrial users of the POTW, and that not all POTWs need to report the
same information to ensure that NPDES permits satisfy CWA requirements.
Hence, EPA proposed a tiered approach to collect needed effluent
monitoring information.
In the December 1995 proposal, EPA proposed to require all POTWs to
report effluent monitoring information for the 17 parameters listed at
proposed 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix J, Table 1 (``Effluent Parameters
For All POTWs''). EPA thought these parameters had a high likelihood of
occurrence in most POTW effluents. EPA also proposed to require
additional reporting of pollutant-specific data for POTWs with design
flows greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd,
[[Page 42446]]
POTWs that have or are required to have pretreatment programs, and
other POTWs required to provide this information to the permitting
authority. In general, the pollutants for which additional data was
proposed to be required are those for which States have established
water quality standards (other than dioxin, asbestos, and ``priority
pollutant'' pesticides). The preamble to the December proposal
explained how EPA chose the pollutants to be sampled.
One commenter disagreed with EPA's approach of using data from a
survey of six States as a basis for nationwide requirements. The
commenter felt EPA should be required to prove the necessity of the
rule based on valid scientific research associated with risk
assessments that represent the majority of POTWs as opposed to a
limited regional survey. EPA examined many pollutant data options
through the rule development period. The Agency considered numerous
stakeholder comments along with other information and the pollutant
scans to determine the requirements in this final rule. EPA determined
what pollutant data was necessary in the final rule to maintain a
balance between satisfactory environmental protection and burden on
applicants. The pollutant requirements in today's rule maintain that
balance by setting the minimum data collection requirements necessary
to write environmentally valid permits.
Many commenters felt that the requirement for minor POTWs, i.e.,
facilities with design flows less than 1.0 mgd, to provide the basic
application information in proposed Appendix J, Table 1, was overly
burdensome. Most of the State commenters felt that it would be more
appropriate to request information from minor facilities on a case-by-
case basis as determined by the permitting authority. EPA understands
the limited resource issue for minor POTWs and in response has reduced
the application requirements for facilities with a design flow of less
than 0.1 mgd.
Section 122.21(j)(4) requires that data be separately provided for
each outfall through which treated sanitary effluent is discharged to
waters of the United States. EPA recognizes that a POTW's effluent may
have similar qualities at more than one of its outfalls. EPA proposed
to allow applicants to provide the effluent data from only one outfall
as representative of all such outfalls, where there are two or more
outfalls with substantially identical effluents, and with the specific
approval of the permitting authority. For outfalls to be considered
substantially identical, the outfalls should, at a minimum, be located
at the same plant with flows subject to the same level of treatment and
having passed through the same types of treatment processes. Six
commenters supported allowing information on substantially identical
outfalls to be submitted once at the discretion of the Director. One
commenter wanted EPA to expand this requirement to allow POTWs to
composite samples from outfalls in close proximity that enter the same
receiving water but may not be substantially identical. The commenter
stated that in such cases it is the combined effect of the various
effluents that is important as far as the toxicity of the receiving
stream is concerned. The commenter also believes that expanding this
requirement in the final rule could substantially reduce the cost of
sampling and analysis for the POTW. EPA agrees and Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(i)
of today's final rule has been amended to allow POTWs to combine
effluent discharges from one or more outfalls that discharge into the
same mixing zone of a stream segment, upon approval of the permitting
authority.
In the proposal, EPA set forth conditions for data acceptability
that all monitoring data submitted to the permitting authority must
meet. While commenters agreed with the basis for the conditions,
several commenters disagreed with individual requirements. EPA had
proposed all data submitted on the application should be from three
scans collected within a 3-year period preceding the permit application
date. Some commenters felt that the three year constraint on the data
would require facilities to collect data specifically for the
application by excluding data collected in the first two years of the
permit cycle. Several commenters also disagreed with the seasonal
constraints placed on the data in the proposed rule. EPA proposed the
three samples should span three different calendar seasons. Three
commenters felt the seasonal constraints might require a facility to
resample because available data was not obtained during the required
seasonal variation.
In response to these comments, EPA has modified the proposed
sampling requirements to allow applicants to use more of their existing
monitoring data. Today's rule extends the window for sampling data to
encompass the period from permit issuance to the time of subsequent
application submittal in the final rule, which is normally four and
one-half years, provided the data represents the current facility
operations. In addition, EPA has eliminated the requirement for sample
data to be a minimum of 4 months and a maximum of 8 months apart.
Instead, EPA is requiring that the samples represent typical daily
discharges occurring during the permit term and be representative of
seasonal variation in the discharges. These requirements are listed in
Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(vi) of today's rule. Because applicants are allowed
to submit samples from a four and one-half year period,
Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(vii) has also been modified to require summarization
of all data from the previous four and one-half years instead of the
proposed three years. As in the proposal, when a pollutant is sampled
on a monthly or more frequent basis, only the most recent year's worth
of data need be summarized for that pollutant.
One commenter felt three data scans may be excessive, especially
for smaller facilities. The smallest facilities are only required to
monitor for six pollutant parameters which many POTWs sample on a
regular basis. Because facilities can use existing data, EPA believes
three samples over four and one-half years is easily obtainable for all
POTWs.
A few commenters were concerned with the requirements in proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(3)(vii) and the accompanying preamble language that
required including all data in the submitted data summaries. They
believed that data collected during pilot studies or for system process
control should not be required to be included in data summaries. EPA
understands that facility operators may wish to collect samples in the
influent or throughout the system in order to determine if they are
operating properly or returning to proper operations after correcting
problems. The introductory language of Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(i) states that
the information required is ``effluent monitoring information for
samples taken from each outfall * * *'' Therefore, this does not
include information from samples collected in process (prior to
discharge). EPA does not intend to require ``check samples'' or samples
collected during pilot studies to be included with other routine
samples.
One commenter asked for clarification as to whether applicants were
required to submit all sample data or just summaries. The rule language
in Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(vii) has been modified to clarify that only the
data summaries need be included. NPDES permitting authorities that want
to review all the individual data reports are free to request them,
either from all applicants or on a case-by-case basis.
Proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3)(viii) contained sample testing
requirements. Commenters stated that time-proportional composite
samples should
[[Page 42447]]
be allowed as an alternative to flow-weighted composite samples because
flow proportional samples are not feasible in every situation. They
also questioned a preamble statement that suggested that 4 grab samples
be summarized for each day of sample collection because they felt 4
samples per day per parameter could be overly burdensome. EPA agrees
with these comments and has modified the language of
Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(viii) to allow time-proportional sampling. Because
the grab sample language is provided as guidance, and not part of the
proposed rule, no rule language change was necessary.
One of the requirements of proposed Sec. 122.21(j)(3)(ix) was to
report the designated method endpoint for the analytical method used.
This section also required applicants to submit pollutant data based
upon actual sample values. The proposal explained that even where test
values are below the detection or quantification level of the method
used, the actual data value should be reported, rather than reporting
``non-detect'' or zero. EPA would require the endpoint of the method to
be reported along with the actual sample results so that the permitting
authority could determine if the data is in the ``non-detect'' range or
merely in the ``below quantification'' range.
Most of the comments received on this issue disagreed with the
requirement to submit actual data values when results are below the
detection level. These commenters believe that data that is below the
sampling method's level of detection is not valid or meaningful data.
Two State commenters supported reporting data even if it is below
detection level. EPA believes that the maximum measured data value
required by Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(ix)(A) should be reported if it is above
the method detection limit. Data values that fall below the
quantification level of a test method should be reported as the actual
sample value. If the maximum value reported for a pollutant is below a
detection limit for the sampling method, the permittee should report
non-detect. Reporting the method end point will notify the permit
writer to look more closely at maximum values that are below the
quantification level of the test performed.
EPA agrees with commenters that actual sample values below the
method detection level or non-detect values should not necessarily be
used in computing the averages required by Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(ix)(B).
There are many different ways of averaging numbers that are below
detection or quantification limits. In today's final rule, which is
about permit application requirements, not permit limit development
requirements, EPA does not require a specific averaging method.
Applicants can use any statistically credible approach as long as the
method is explained with the results and the permitting authority
agrees. Permitting authorities may require a specific method to be
used.
EPA has provided guidance to the applicant in the Form 2A
instructions in order to minimize the conditions that lead to
inaccurate sampling data. EPA believes that the permit applicant
should: (1) alert its laboratory to the analytical and detection limit
requirements and the expectations for documentation; and (2) report the
necessary documentation to ensure that the permit writer is fully
informed as to the methods used and the results obtained. For more
detailed information concerning analytical issues (acceptable methods,
effluent-specific detection limits, and documentation of data and
analytical problems), applicants should refer to the ``Guidance on
Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical Problems
Associated with Compliance Monitoring'', EPA 821-B-93-001, June 1993.
a. Pollutant Data Requirements for All POTWs. As mentioned earlier,
EPA has modified the proposed rule to limit the reporting burden for
very small (<0.1 mgd)="" potws="" without="" significant="" industrial="" contributions.="" these="" facilities="" are="" required="" to="" submit="" effluent="" monitoring="" data="" for="" only="" 6="" parameters:="" biochemical="" oxygen="" demand="">5 or CBOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
fecal coliform, pH, temperature, and flow. These parameters are listed
in Appendix J, Table 1A. EPA selected them based on the secondary
treatment regulations at 40 CFR Part 133, which describe the minimum
level of effluent quality that POTWs must attain in terms of
BOD5, TSS, and pH. Control of BOD5 or
CBOD5 is necessary to ensure sufficient dissolved oxygen in
the receiving water to protect aquatic life. High TSS levels in the
effluent block light in the receiving water and inhibit photosynthesis.
TSS limits also help prevent solids accumulations that can lead to
sediment oxygen demand and other sediment related problems. Permit
writers use information on all of the parameters listed above to set
appropriate water quality-based limits for permit applicants. When
POTWs have been allowed to substitute chemical oxygen demand (COD) or
total organic carbon (TOC) for BOD5, in accordance with 40
CFR 133.104, applicants must report the substituted parameter.
b. Pollutant Data Requirements for POTWs with Design Flows Greater
Than or Equal to 0.1 mgd. Facilities that have a design flow greater
than or equal to 0.1 mgd are required by Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(iii) to
provide additional data on the parameters listed at Appendix J, Table
1. These parameters are oil and grease, total residual chlorine (TRC),
Kjeldahl nitrogen (total organic as N), total dissolved solids, total
phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, ammonia (as N), and nitrate/nitrite (as
N).
EPA originally proposed a pollutant scan list that would have
included E. coli, enterococci and hardness. Many commenters felt that
EPA was premature in proposing requirements for E. coli and enterococci
to be used as bacterial indicators because EPA had not approved methods
to measure for these parameters in POTW effluent. The Agency has,
however, developed and recommended water quality criteria for these
pollutants. Today's rule does not require analysis for these two
pollutants. The Agency notes, however, that pending legislation may
direct the Agency to re-evaluate this decision through future
rulemaking.
The Beaches Environmental Awareness, Cleanup, and Health Act of
1999, H.R. 999, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999), recently passed in the
House of Representatives, is designed to protect coastal recreation
waters and beach users from pathogens and beach debris. The legislation
would apply to coastal recreational waters, defined as the Great Lakes
and marine coastal waters, including estuaries, used by the public for
swimming, bathing, surfing, or other similar water contact activities.
Section 2 of the legislation would require States to develop revised
recommended water quality criteria for E. coli and enterococcus for
coastal recreation waters. Section 3 would also require EPA to develop
new water quality criteria guidance for other pathogen indicators,
which States would be required to adopt thereafter. Regardless of
whether the legislation is ultimately enacted, EPA intends to propose
methods soon to measure for both E. coli and enterococci in POTW
effluent. Until the Agency approves and promulgates new methods and
modifications to the permit application requirements, however, today's
permit application rule will continue to use fecal coliform as the
pathogen indicator for wastewater.
Three commenters felt that hardness data should be deleted from the
general POTW requirements because hardness data are typically used to
establish
[[Page 42448]]
metals limitations in the effluent. If the POTW is not required to test
for metals, the hardness data is of limited value on the application.
Based on these comments, EPA has moved the hardness requirement to
Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(iv) which requires reporting of additional
pollutants, including metals, by some POTWs.
In the proposal, EPA also solicited comment on the need to require
chlorine data from POTWs that do not use chlorination for disinfection
and do not otherwise use chlorine in their treatment process. Most
commenters felt that chlorine data should not be required from such
facilities because facilities would have no reasonable potential to
discharge chlorine. EPA agrees with the commenters and has created an
exemption from the chlorine testing requirement at
Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(iii) for facilities that do not use chlorine for
disinfection, do not use chlorine elsewhere in the treatment process,
and have no reasonable potential to discharge chlorine in their
effluent.
EPA received various other comments on all the remaining
parameters. Some commenters questioned the testing requirement for oil
and grease because facilities employing secondary treatment do not
discharge significant quantities of the kinds of materials which would
be measured with this parameter. EPA disagrees, and believes that many
POTWS have the potential to discharge oil and grease, which may be
significant even in very low quantities. Concentrations of oil and
grease sufficient to create a sheen on the receiving water not only
affect aesthetic qualities of these waters, but may also reduce the re-
aeration rate of the receiving waters, potentially contributing to the
dissolved oxygen sag problem. Oil and grease may also indicate the
presence of other high molecular weight organic pollutants of concern
because oil and grease are often discharged with or as a sink for such
pollutants. For these reasons EPA is maintaining the oil and grease
requirement for facilities with a design flow greater than or equal to
0.1 mgd.
EPA received comments to delete each of the following parameters:
ammonia; total nitrate plus nitrite; Kjeldahl nitrogen; and total
phosphate. Ammonia, which is common in nearly all sanitary sewage, is
highly toxic to aquatic life and studies indicate frequent adverse
effects from this compound in receiving waters. The commenter
questioning ammonia testing suggested that testing should only be
required at facilities which have ammonia limits in their permits. EPA
disagrees. Without testing for ammonia in effluents, permit writers may
lack the information to determine whether ammonia limits are necessary
in the first place. In addition, many State water quality standards
regulate ammonia due to its toxicity, thus making testing necessary to
assure compliance with such standards.
EPA proposed three additional parameters, nitrate plus nitrite,
Kjeldahl nitrogen and phosphorus, because they are prevalent in most
POTW effluents and because of their potential for adverse impacts on
receiving waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus are often ``limiting''
nutrients, which cause oxygen depletion in marine and fresh water
systems, respectively. Excessive loadings of nitrogen (discharged as
ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and organic nitrogen) and phosphorus
(discharged as phosphate) can stimulate algae growth, interfering with
shoreline aesthetics and recreational uses. In addition, decaying algae
can reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations, thus impairing the aquatic
environment. One commenter felt the phosphorus testing should only be
required for discharges into impounded lakes or reservoirs where
phosphorus build up could result in a serious algal bloom. EPA
disagrees with any such limitation because phosphorus is likely to be
found in most POTW discharges and causes demonstrated problems in other
types of water bodies, including estuaries (e.g. Chesapeake Bay) and in
large rivers (e.g. Mississippi River). Therefore, testing for
phosphorus and nitrate/nitrite and Kjeldahl nitrogen remain in the
final rule.
EPA received no comments on the remaining two parameters, total
dissolved solids and dissolved oxygen, and those parameters remain in
Appendix J, Table 1 of today's rule.
In the proposal, EPA requested comment on the deletion of six
parameters on Standard Form A. Commenters agreed that the six
parameters, chemical oxygen demand, fecal streptococci, settleable
matter, total coliform bacteria, total organic carbon, and total solids
were no longer relevant or useful parameters for evaluation of POTW
discharges. These parameters do not appear in the Sec. 122.21(j)
requirements.
In addition to the six parameters discussed above, Standard Form A
required that POTWs indicate the presence of (but not provide
quantitative data for) certain pollutants. These pollutants included
metals, as well as other toxics and non-conventional pollutants. As
proposed, certain POTWs would need to monitor and indicate the presence
of the ``priority pollutants'' from that list. The requirements for
these pollutants are discussed in the following section of this
preamble.
Several commenters supported the proposed deletion of the other
remaining parameters, which are not included in today's final rule. In
the proposal, EPA asked for comment on requiring testing for sulfide,
sulfate, aluminum, barium, and fluoride. All of the comments on these
parameters supported EPA's proposal to not require testing for these
parameters. Therefore, the final rule does not require such testing.
c. Additional Pollutant Data Requirements for Some POTWs. Section
122.21(j)(4)(iv) requires the testing of the additional parameters
listed in Appendix J, Table 2, by certain POTWs specified below. EPA
believes the specified POTWs are most likely to discharge such
pollutants to receiving waters. The Table 2 pollutants are toxic and
may interfere with POTW performance or pass through the POTW to
receiving waters without treatment, thus causing adverse water quality
impacts. As stated earlier, the Agency added hardness to the Table 2
list because permit writers use hardness data in conjunction with
metals data to determine the need for and to derive water quality based
effluent limits for metals.
Certain POTWs discharge toxic organic and inorganic pollutants
primarily as a result of contributions from non-domestic sources.
Section 122.21(j)(4)(iv) of today's rule requires the applicant to
submit monitoring data for the pollutants listed in Appendix J, Table
2, if the POTW meets any one of the following criteria: (1) the POTW
has a design flow rate equal to or greater than 1.0 mgd; (2) the POTW
has a pretreatment program or is required to have one under 40 CFR Part
403; or (3) the POTW is otherwise required to submit this data by the
permitting authority.
Two commenters felt that the designation of all facilities required
to have pretreatment programs is overly burdensome for smaller
facilities that are required to have pretreatment programs. The
pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.8 set forth the criteria for
which POTWs must establish pretreatment programs. EPA believes that all
POTWs with pretreatment programs have the potential to discharge Table
2 pollutants, regardless of size.
In addition to POTWs with design flows greater than or equal to 1.0
mgd and POTWs with pretreatment programs, the rule preserves the
discretion of the permitting authority to
[[Page 42449]]
require any other POTW to submit monitoring data for some or all of the
pollutants listed in Appendix J, Table 2. EPA recommends that the
permitting authority require an applicant to perform a complete or
partial pollutant scan if toxicity is known or suspected in a POTW's
effluent. In addition, if the POTW's effluent causes adverse water
quality impacts or if the POTW discharges to an already impaired
receiving water, the permit writer has the discretion to require the
applicant to provide analytical results from a complete pollutant scan.
The permit writer should also consider whether to require the applicant
to test for individual parameters depending on the numbers or kinds of
industrial users discharging to the POTW.
Numerous commenters provided input on EPA's decision to require
testing of the pollutants listed on the Appendix J, Table 2 list. Many
commenters provided individual preferences on which parameters they
felt should be required. EPA has reviewed the comments carefully and
feels that testing for the complete list is necessary for the
development of environmentally protective permits. A few commenters
noted cost as a factor for deleting various organic parameters. Upon
review, EPA anticipates that most laboratories will run the entire
volatile organics scan, acid-extractable scan or base-neutral scan at
one price with one sample. Thus, deleting one or two individual
parameters will not reduce cost to the permittee. In fact, the Agency
developed EPA Methods 624 and 625 (published at 40 CFR 136) so that
these two tests would cover most organic priority pollutants.
In the December 1995 preamble, EPA asked for comment on various
other approaches to collecting pollutant data. The comments received
did not support the use of any of these other approaches.
6. Effluent Monitoring For Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
Existing regulations require certain POTWs to provide the results
of whole effluent biological toxicity testing as part of their NPDES
permit applications. The proposal moved these requirements to proposed
Sec. 122.21(j)(4) to require the same POTWs to conduct WET tests and to
identify any biological tests the applicant believed to have been
conducted within three years of the date of application.
EPA received several comments on the issue of POTWs providing data
from the last three years of the permitting cycle. States tended to
disagree with the three year limitation because many States require
more frequent testing during the first one or two years in the
permitting cycle, and a reduced amount for the remaining years. Other
commenters disagreed with the three year limitation because they have
already undergone several cycles of WET testing and they are now on a
routine testing cycle such as annual testing. These permittees do not
wish to perform testing for application purposes only. EPA proposed the
three year limitation because some of the available WET testing
information was not conducted in accordance with the nationally-
approved test procedures in 40 CFR Part 136 that became effective on
November 15, 1995 (60 FR 53529). EPA agrees that facilities who perform
routine WET testing, and have historically shown compliance, should not
be required to perform testing for the permit reapplication.
EPA studied several possible scenarios for testing and has
determined that it is important for facilities to provide the current
WET data available in order for permit writers to set appropriate
permit conditions. The most useful data is quarterly data collected
within the year prior to the application form. This data provides the
most useful and relevant characterization of the applicant's discharge
at the time of the application. The Agency does understand that many
facilities currently perform WET testing on a routine basis and may
have a history of no toxicity. For these facilities, the Agency
understands that collecting quarterly data for one year prior to the
application may be unnecessary. Today's rule allows facilities who have
performed WET analyses at least annually in the five year period prior
to the application to submit that data on the application in lieu of
collecting new data for the application. EPA presumes the validity of
such data provided it shows no appreciable toxicity using a safety
factor determined by the permitting authority. The data must also have
been conducted in accordance with approved Part 136 methods.
EPA solicited comment on whether the requirement to conduct WET
testing should be extended to other POTWs. EPA received several
responses all recommending that the requirement should not be expanded.
The commenters felt the permitting authority was in the best position
to require WET testing from additional facilities on a case-by-case
basis. EPA agrees; therefore, today's rule does not expand the WET
requirement to other facilities.
Section 122.21(j)(5)(iii) allows the POTW applicant to provide the
results of WET testing from only one outfall as representative of all
outfalls where the POTW has two or more outfalls with substantially
identical effluents discharging to the same receiving stream and where
the permitting authority provides specific approval. For outfalls to be
considered substantially identical, the outfalls should, at a minimum,
be located at the same treatment plant with flows subject to the same
level of treatment and having passed through the same types of
treatment processes. This section has been modified in the same manner
as Sec. 122.21(j)(4)(i) to include a provision to allow an applicant to
submit a composite sample in lieu of individual samples for discharges
from one or more outfalls that discharge into the same mixing zone if
approved by the permitting authority.
Existing WET testing requirements did not specify the number or
frequency of tests required, the number of species to be used, or
whether to provide the results of acute or chronic toxicity tests.
Therefore the December 1995 proposal set minimum reporting requirements
of four quarterly tests for a year, required multiple species (no less
than two taxonomic groups, e.g., fish, invertebrate, plant), and
specified testing for acute or chronic toxicity depending on the range
of receiving water dilution.
Many commenters stated that permitting authorities often establish
a permit reporting frequency that may change throughout the permit life
based on the results. In setting a minimum permit application frequency
of quarterly testing for a year, EPA indicated the frequency interval
was necessary to adequately assess the effluent variability of toxicity
observed over the course of the year. EPA understands that many
permitting authorities commonly only require one cycle of quarterly
testing at some time during the permit cycle. Most of the commenters
agreed that four quarterly samples was an appropriate test size; they
disagreed on the three year limitation of the data. One commenter, a
permitting authority, stated that EPA should define the minimum data
set size and let the NPDES permitting authority define acceptability of
data based on when the data was generated. EPA agrees with this
recommendation and has expanded the three year requirement for data to
the most current permitting cycle in this final rule. EPA did not,
however, change the requirement for four quarterly tests.
The existing whole effluent toxicity testing requirements do not
specify whether applicants should test for acute or chronic toxicity.
An acute toxicity
[[Page 42450]]
test typically measures the lethality of the test sample to test
organisms over a period of 96 hours or less. A chronic toxicity test
measures effects over longer time periods and measures sublethal
effects, such as fertilization, growth, and reproduction, in addition
to lethality. See Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control (1991) (TSD) p. 4.
In the December 1995 proposal, EPA recommended that testing for
acute or chronic toxicity be based upon the ratio of receiving water to
effluent at the edge of the mixing zone as recommended in the TSD. Many
commenters felt this determination should be left to the permitting
authority because permit writers are more qualified than permit
applicants to assess the discharge and its impacts on the receiving
stream. In the final rule, EPA has not specified whether permit
applicants must measure for either acute or chronic toxicity based on
the ratio of receiving water to effluent though the Agency still
maintains that the recommendation is reasonable based on the discussion
in the TSD. Permit applicants should consult with the permitting
authority to determine applicable testing requirements. Permitting
authorities retain discretion to require testing for either acute or
chronic toxicity. In jurisdictions where EPA administers the NPDES
program, the Agency expects EPA Regions to follow the guidance in the
TSD.
Section 122.21(j)(5)(ix) now requires that an applicant provide any
information it may have on the cause of any toxicity. Further,
applicants must provide written details of any toxicity reduction
evaluation conducted. Toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs) are used to
investigate the causes and sources of toxicity and identify the
effectiveness of corrective actions to reduce it. The permitting
authority may require a permittee to conduct a TRE in those cases where
the discharger is unable to adequately explain and immediately correct
non-compliance with a whole effluent toxicity permit limit or otherwise
reduce the toxicity to a level below a ``trigger'' for the TRE.
7. Industrial Discharges
Today's rule requires certain applicants to provide certain
information about industrial users. The proposed rule would have
required the applicant to list the total number of categorical
industrial users (CIUs) and other significant industrial users (SIUs)
discharging to the POTW, to estimate the average daily flow from these
users and from all industrial users, and to estimate the percent of
total influent contributed by each class of users. Today's rule reduces
the scope of required information from the proposal.
A categorical industrial user is any discharger subject to
categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter N. ``Significant industrial user'' is defined at
40 CFR 403.3(t) as any categorical industrial user and any other
industrial user that: (1) Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per
day or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, non-
contact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewater); (2) contributes a
process wastestream which makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry
weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW; or (3) is designated
as such by the Control Authority (40 CFR 403.12(a)) because of a
reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW's operation or
violate pretreatment requirements.
Several commenters stated that these requirements would be overly
burdensome given the fact the term ``industrial user'' (IU) includes
any non-domestic source regulated under Section 307(b), (c), or (d) of
the CWA. The commenters also questioned the usefulness of the
requirement to report average daily flow from all IUs and to estimate
the percent of total influent contributed by each class.
Section 122.21(j)(6)(i) of the final rule has been modified from
the proposal. It does not require reporting of the total SIU, CIU, and
IU average daily flow and the estimated percent of total influent
because this information can be difficult to obtain and the permit
writer may be able to estimate this information from other sources.
Today's final rule now only asks the applicant to list the total number
of CIUs and other SIUs discharging to the POTW. EPA has not modified
the definition of ``industrial users'' as some commenters suggested.
The definition includes commercial sources of non-domestic wastewater
because these facilities have the potential to adversely impact the
POTW's discharge in the same way as other industrial discharge sources.
This comment is beyond the scope of the proposal.
EPA proposed to require POTWs with approved pretreatment programs
to describe any substantial modifications to the POTW's pretreatment
program that had been submitted, but not yet approved by the approval
authority in accordance with 40 CFR 403.18. EPA has determined this
requirement is not necessary and the Agency has not included it in the
final rule. The permitting authority should already be aware of program
modifications submitted but not yet approved by the approval authority
so it is not necessary for the applicant to resubmit this information.
EPA proposed to require information on individual SIUs discharging
to POTWs. Several commenters suggested various deletions of the
information required on SIUs. EPA believes that permit writers need
this information to determine if a facility should be required to have
a pretreatment program and to evaluate the SIUs and determine if any
are more appropriately characterized as CIUs. Therefore, today's rule
retains these requirements but renumbers them as Sec. 122.21(j)(6)(ii).
EPA received several comments questioning the difference between
the Standard Form A and proposed Form 2A requirements on principal
products and raw materials, and the need for such information. Standard
Form A required the applicant to identify the quantities of products
and raw materials while proposed Form 2A would only have required a
narrative description of these products and raw materials. EPA believes
that the permit writer only needs this narrative information if the
products or raw materials are present in the SIU's discharge.
Therefore, today's final rule further modifies this provision to
require only information on products or raw materials that may affect
or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Today's rule deletes a requirement on Standard Form A to
characterize each SIU's industrial discharge. In many cases, the permit
writer is able to determine parameters of concern from the principal
products and raw materials for that SIU. If necessary, the permit
writer may request this information on a case-by-case basis. Commenters
supported this deletion.
In an attempt to reduce duplication of effort, the proposal
requested comment on whether a POTW should be allowed to reference
substantially similar information about SIUs previously submitted to
the permitting authority or to waive SIU information reporting for a
POTW who operates an approved pretreatment program and has submitted an
annual report containing the required information within the year
preceding the application. All of the comments received on this
question supported this provision for facilities with approved
pretreatment programs who have filed annual reports.
Today's rule contains a new Sec. 122.21(j)(6)(iii) that allows the
Director to waive requirements for reporting SIU information for POTWs
that submit substantially similar information in an annual report or
with a pretreatment
[[Page 42451]]
program submittal. All referenced information should also be
incorporated into the administrative record for the permit application.
This new provision responds to comments that POTWs provide much of this
information on previously submitted pretreatment program reports.
8. Discharges From RCRA and CERCLA Waste Sources
EPA proposed to require applicants to provide general information
concerning discharges to POTWs of wastes that would be considered
``hazardous wastes'' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) as well as discharges to POTWs from hazardous waste cleanup or
remediation sites. This information would alert the permit writer to
potential concerns regarding the constituents of such discharges.
Therefore, section 122.21(j)(7)(i) requests information on RCRA
hazardous wastes received by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe. Generator
information does not have to be reported on RCRA hazardous wastes
discharged to a sewer system that mix with domestic sewage before
reaching the POTW because the Domestic Sewage Exclusion (under RCRA
section 1004(27)) provides that ``solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage is not solid waste'' and therefore is not a hazardous
waste. Such materials, however, remain subject to the prohibited
discharge standards of 40 CFR 403.5.
As noted by one commenter, the information requested in this
section is already a POTW requirement under RCRA permit-by-rule (40 CFR
270.60(c)). The RCRA rule, however, does not require the POTW to report
this information to the NPDES permitting authority. Today's rule
ensures that the permitting authority is aware of any hazardous
materials that may enter the POTW.
In many cases, POTWs will also already have the information
required by Sec. 122.21(j)(7)(ii) because similar information on
hazardous constituents is required by the pretreatment requirements at
Sec. 403.12(p). This section of today's rule requires the POTW to
report information on wastewaters from remedial activities that are
accepted at the POTW. Two commenters were concerned that the
requirement to identify all hazardous constituents of the wastewater
did not have a de minimis exclusion. One of these commenters also
questioned the meaning of ``hazardous constituent'' because it is not
defined in the rule. The language has been modified to address these
concerns in today's final rule. Section 122.21(j)(7)(ii)(B) clarifies
that the hazardous constituents to be identified are those listed in
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261. Section 122.21(j)(7)(iii) provides a
small quantity exemption for POTWs that receive less than fifteen
kilograms of hazardous wastes per month from all discharges into the
collection system, unless the wastes are acutely hazardous wastes. This
exemption is the same as the exemption for IUs that must report
hazardous wastes to POTWs under Sec. 403.12(p) of the pretreatment
requirements.
In today's rule language, hazardous constituents in remedial waste
need only be reported if known. If a POTW has not required the remedial
site to report all the hazardous constituents, the POTW is not required
to sample the waste. If the hazardous constituents are not known, the
permit writer may require such sampling on a case-by-case basis when he
or she believes it is necessary to write a complete permit.
The proposed language requested the same information three separate
times, for CERCLA wastes, RCRA corrective action wastes, and other
remedial wastes. One commenter suggested that these three questions
should be combined. EPA agrees and has done so in today's rule.
Commenters also stated that POTWs do not know all the potential sources
of hazardous wastes at the time of permit application so they should
not be asked about wastes that they expect to receive. One of these
commenters was concerned that the proposed language meant that POTWs
could not accept remedial waste unless it was identified in the permit
application. In response, EPA has changed the language of today's rule
to require information on hazardous constituents in wastes that the
POTW has received or has agreed or expects to receive. This rule does
not preclude POTWs from accepting additional such wastes during the
permit, though such wastes do remain subject to the prohibited
discharge standards of 40 CFR 403.5.
9. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Section 122.21(j)(8)(i) requires information about the combined
sewer system (CSS), including a system map and system diagram that
describe the relevant features of the system. EPA deleted other
information from the proposed rule, such as a system evaluation,
because the Agency agrees with commenters that such additional
information is unnecessary or is requested elsewhere.
Today's rule at section 122.21(j)(8)(ii) requires that applicants
provide information on each CSO outfall specifically covered by the
application. This includes locational information similar to the
information required for outfalls discharging treated effluent. As
discussed previously, this sort of locational data is consistent with
Agency policy concerning the reporting of such information and it
provides permitting authorities with a means of locating dischargers.
This provision also requires reporting of any parameter monitoring
conducted on discharges from CSO outfalls and requests information
about any CSO events that occurred in the year previous to the permit
application.
Section 122.21(j)(8)(ii)(E) requires the permittee to describe any
known water quality impacts, such as beach or shellfish bed closings
and fish kills. EPA considers this to be the minimum amount of
information needed by the permit writer to specifically authorize
discharges at each of the identified CSO outfalls. Originally, EPA
proposed to require identification of any significant industrial users
that introduce pollutants to the collection system upstream from a CSO
outfall. No such requirement exists in the final rule because the
information is provided in Sec. 122.21(j)(6)(i) with other information
on SIUs.
10. Contractors
Section 122.21(j)(9) requires the applicant to identify all
contractors responsible for any operation or maintenance aspects of the
POTW and to specify such contractors' responsibilities. This
information enables the permit writer to determine who has primary
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the POTW and thus
determine whether a contractor should be included on the permit as a
co-permittee.
The Agency received conflicting comments on this requirement. One
commenter agreed, one disagreed on the basis that POTWs cannot contract
out their liability in a permit, and one wanted more clarification. EPA
believes that POTWs cannot contract away their liability for compliance
with NPDES permit requirements rather, they can contract operational
tasks. EPA believes it is important, however, for the permitting
authorities to know all parties involved in the operation and
maintenance of each POTW in order to determine the appropriate
responsible party. This section remains as proposed.
[[Page 42452]]
11. Certification
Section 122.21(j)(10) requires the certification and signature of
an authorized official in compliance with 40 CFR 122.22. The
certification applies to all attachments identified on the application
form, as well as any others included by the applicant. No comments were
received on this section, and it is unchanged from the proposal.
G. Application Requirements for TWTDS (40 CFR 122.21(q))
Today EPA finalizes regulatory language at Sec. 122.21(q) to update
the information that treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS)
must submit with their permit applications. EPA also finalizes a new
form, Form 2S, for collection of this information. Section (q) requires
all TWTDS, except ``sludge-only'' facilities, to report information
regarding sewage sludge generation, treatment, use, and disposal. The
permitting authority may also require a ``sludge-only'' facility to
submit a permit application containing this information. Today's
requirements are intended to clarify the previous sewage sludge
application requirements that are necessary to implement EPA's Part 503
standards for sewage sludge use or disposal. These requirements were
originally provided at Sec. 501.15(a)(2) and were moved to
Sec. 501.15(a)(4) with the modifications to Parts 123 and 501 published
on August 24, 1998 (63 FR 45114). As of today's rule, these
requirements are replaced by Sec. 122.21(q). See section II.I of
today's preamble for additional discussion.
As with the POTW application requirements, EPA does not wish to
require redundant reporting by TWTDS. Thus, the amended regulations
authorize EPA to waive submission of certain information required to be
reported under Sec. 122.21(q) in circumstances similar to that provided
in Sec. 122.21(j). The Director may waive any requirements in paragraph
(q) if he or she has access to substantially identical information. EPA
received numerous favorable comments on this approach. In addition, an
applicant may reference previously submitted information that is still
accurate if the applicant is certain that the permitting authority
already has all the necessary information.
As with the Sec. 122.21(j) waiver, applicants should be very
specific when referencing information so the permitting authority has
no difficulty in locating the previous submission. Permitting
authorities should recognize the need to keep information available for
future action and to ensure the availability of information submitted
to various departments. All referenced information should also be
incorporated into the administrative record for the permit application.
EPA also solicited comments on ways to allow the permit writer or
permitting authority discretion in waiving submission of particular
information where the permitting authority determines that such
information is not necessary for the application. EPA received several
comments that suggested allowing the permitting authority to waive any
requirements it deemed unnecessary. In response, EPA has revised
Sec. 122.21(q) of today's rule similarly to Sec. 122.21(j) to provide
authorized NPDES States with the ability to waive any requirement of
Sec. 122.21(q) that the State believes is not of material concern for a
specific permit, if approved by the Regional Administrator. See section
II.F.for additional waiver discussion.
1. Facility Information
Section 122.21(q)(1) requires summary information on the identity,
size, location, and status of the facility as a Federal, State,
private, public, or other entity. Proposed paragraph (ii) of this
section required that the facility location be described by latitude
and longitude to the nearest second. EPA received one comment on this
issue. The commenter stated that this requirement is not contained in
POTW permit application requirements and should not be in TWTDS
application requirements. Section 122.21(j) does require location by
latitude and longitude, but only for location of outfalls. For sewage
sludge, the location of land application sites is in significance
equivalent to outfall locations for POTWs. Therefore, EPA agrees that
it does not need the location of a facility described by latitude and
longitude. In today's final rule, information on location by latitude
and longitude pursuant to EPA's Locational Data Policy is only
requested in Secs. 122.21(q)(9)-(11) as part of the specific
information for land application sites, surface disposal sites, and
incinerators.
2. Applicant Information
Section 122.21(q)(2) requires information concerning the identity
of the applicant. The only change from the proposal is that proposed
Sec. 122.21(q)(2)(iii) is moved to become Sec. 122.21(q)(1)(vi). The
proposed question asked whether the applicant was a Federal, private,
public, or other entity. This question should be asked about the
facility, not the applicant. Therefore, it has been moved from the
applicant information section to the facility information section.
3. Permit Information
Section 122.21(q)(3) restates the Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(v) requirement
that the applicant list the facility's NPDES permit number and any
other permit numbers or construction approvals received or applied for
under various authorities. EPA received no comments on this section and
it is unchanged from the proposal.
4. Indian Country
Section 122.21(q)(4) asks whether any generation, treatment,
storage, land application, or disposal of sewage sludge occurs in
Indian country. This section clarifies existing Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(iv),
which previously asked only ``whether the facility is located on Indian
Lands.''
Note: Safe Drinking Water Act regulations for the administration
of the Underground Injection Control program define ``Indian Lands''
to mean ``Indian country.'' See 40 CFR 144.3.
For further discussion of the substitution of the term ``Indian
country,'' see the discussion earlier in today's preamble. A sewage
sludge use or disposal permit, however, may cover activities occurring
beyond the boundaries of the ``facility.''
5. Topographic Map
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(5) required the applicant to submit the
following information on a topographic map (or maps) depicting the area
one mile beyond the property boundaries of the TWTDS: all sewage sludge
management facilities, all water bodies, and all wells used for
drinking water listed in public records or otherwise known to the
applicant within \1/4\ mile of the property boundaries. This proposed
requirement is different from the existing topographic map requirement
at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(vi) in that the proposed requirement asked for
information on use and disposal sites rather than just disposal sites.
EPA received 16 comments on this issue of topographic maps. The
comments were quite diverse and ranged from support for requiring
topographic maps from all use or disposal sites to requiring them only
of the facility. EPA has decided that the topographic map requirement
for TWTDS should be similar to the requirement for POTWs. Therefore,
the final language of Sec. 122.21(q)(5) requires a topographic map that
shows on-site treatment, storage, and disposal sites. This does not
include land application
[[Page 42453]]
sites as these are use sites, not disposal sites. This section of the
rule also requires the same identification of wells and water bodies as
required for POTWs. Section 122.21(j)(1)(viii) requires a topographic
map of each POTW that extends one mile beyond the facility. Therefore,
all TWTDS that must meet this requirement can use the same topographic
map to meet the requirements of Sec. 122.21(q)(5). ``Sludge-only''
TWTDS are only required to submit limited background information.
Therefore, they do not need to prepare a topographic map unless the
permitting authority requires a full permit application.
EPA believes that it is important to get information on land
application sites but recognizes that many applicants cannot identify
all their land application sites at the time of permit application.
This is the purpose of the land application plan. EPA believes that
topographic maps should be submitted for all sites known to the
applicant at the time of permit application unless they receive only
exceptional quality (EQ) sewage sludge. EPA is modifying the proposed
language in Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) to add a requirement for a
topographic map. Several commenters stated that topographic maps should
not be required for sites that used only ``EQ'' sewage sludge. EPA
agrees and has placed the map requirement in Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii),
thereby excluding sites that accept only ``EQ'' sewage sludge.
The land application plan asks for general information on sites
that are not known at the time of permit application. The permitting
authority will need to decide exactly what information it needs about
these sites as they are put into use.
6. Sewage Sludge Handling
The December 6, 1995, proposal required a flow diagram, and/or a
narrative description that identifies all sewage sludge management
practices (including on-site storage) to be employed during the life of
the permit. EPA believes that this information is necessary because the
applicant may employ sewage sludge management practices not covered
under the more specific questions proposed in today's rule. Three
comments were received on this requirement. One commenter thought that
this description would normally not be necessary; the other two thought
that it was appropriate.
EPA also requested comments on whether more specific information
about on-site and off-site storage of sewage sludge should be required
of permit applicants. All five commenters on this issue thought that
some information should be obtained about storage, but there were no
suggestions of specific questions. Because storage is not regulated by
Part 503, EPA believes that asking for information on storage as part
of a flow diagram or narrative description is the best way to obtain
this information. Therefore, EPA is today promulgating
Sec. 122.21(q)(6) as proposed.
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
In the December 6, 1995, notice, EPA proposed a two-tier approach
for collection of pollutant specific data based on whether the
treatment works had an industrial pretreatment program. As proposed,
Class I sludge management facilities would be required to submit the
results of at least one toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) conducted during the last five years to determine whether the
sewage sludge is a hazardous waste. They would also be required to
submit sewage sludge data for all the priority pollutants except
asbestos, for the Part 503 pollutants, and for total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), ammonia, nitrate, and total phosphorus. Other TWTDS would be
required to submit data for the pollutants regulated in Part 503 and
for TKN, ammonia, nitrate, and total phosphorus.
EPA requested comments on adding several other requirements. These
included requiring Class I sludge management facilities to submit data
on 20 pollutants from the tentative list for the Part 503 Round Two
regulation; requiring all TWTDS that land apply or place sewage sludge
in a surface disposal site to submit data on fecal coliform, Salmonella
sp. bacteria, enteric viruses, and viable helminth ova; and requiring
non-Class 1 TWTDS to submit results of a TCLP and data on dioxin/
dibenzofurans and co-planar polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). EPA also
solicited comments on whether an applicant should be required to submit
data only for the pollutants regulated for the TWTDS' use or disposal
practice.
EPA received numerous comments on all the above issues. The vast
majority of the comments questioned the need for data other than the
parameters regulated in Part 503. Several commenters mentioned the Part
503 risk assessment and felt that if a pollutant was not regulated in
Part 503, there was no need for monitoring or basis for setting a
limit.
After considering the comments, EPA has concluded that the permit
application should only include monitoring data for pollutants that
have Part 503 limits for the applicant's use or disposal method at the
time of permit application. At the time of this final rule, for land
application these are arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc. For surface disposal they are
arsenic, chromium, and nickel, and for incineration they are arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. If an applicant thinks that it may
change use or disposal practices during the permit period, it should
submit data for all potentially regulated pollutants. Today's notice
amends proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(7) to require all applicants to submit
data for pollutants for which Part 503 limits have been established for
their use or disposal practices.
Two additional issues were raised in the comments received on this
section. Three commenters suggested that data from the past three years
should be allowed rather than two years for consistency with POTW
permit applications. EPA agrees that consistency between the forms
makes sense for this issue. The data period for POTW permit application
requirements has been extended to four and one-half years in today's
final rule. This allows applicants to submit data obtained at any time
during the previous permit cycle. For consistency, EPA is making the
same change for TWTDS application requirements in Sec. 122.21(q)(7)
(and on Form 2S).
The proposed rule asked for the analytical methods used but did not
require use of specific methods, to allow for the submittal of existing
data. Part 503 requires the use of test methods in SW-846 for
monitoring pollutants. Three commenters suggested that SW-846 methods
should be used for application data as well. Because all facilities
have had to monitor according to Part 503 for several years, there is
no longer any reason to accept data that is not analyzed according to
SW-846 methods. Therefore, EPA is today modifying Sec. 122.21(q)(7) to
require application monitoring data to be analyzed according to methods
in SW-846.
8. Requirements for a Person Who Prepares Sewage Sludge
In the December 6, 1995 proposal, Sec. 122.21(q)(8) identified the
permit application information that a person who prepares sewage sludge
for use or disposal would be required to submit. A ``person who
prepares,'' as defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), is ``either the person who
generates sewage sludge during the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works or the person who derives a material from sewage
sludge.'' This section thus pertains to any POTW
[[Page 42454]]
or other treatment works that generates sewage sludge. It also includes
facilities (such as composting operations) that receive sewage sludge
from another facility and then produce a material derived from that
sewage sludge.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) requested information on the amount of
sewage sludge generated (paragraph (i)) plus any other amount that is
received from off-site (paragraph (ii)). Paragraph (ii) also solicited
information on sewage sludge treatment practices at any off-site
facility from which sewage sludge is received. Paragraph (iii)
requested information on sewage sludge treatment processes at the
applicant's facility, including pathogen or vector attraction reduction
processes. Paragraph (iv) asked for the amount of ``EQ'' sewage sludge
that is applied to the land. Paragraph (v) sought information on sewage
sludge that is not ``EQ,'' but is nevertheless placed in a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for application to the land. Paragraph
(vi) sought information about any other ``person who prepares'' who
receives sewage sludge from the applicant's facility.
EPA received eight comments on these proposed information requests.
Most of the commenters believed that some or all of the information in
Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(vi) was unnecessary and duplicative because it would
also be reported on the receiving TWTDS'' permit application. One
commenter believed that the information in Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(ii) was
also unnecessary and duplicative because it would be reported on the
sending TWTDS'' permit application. EPA anticipated these concerns and
requested comments on ways to avoid this duplication, such as allowing
the applicant to reference substantially similar information previously
submitted to a permitting authority rather than resubmitting the
information.
If all permit applications went to the same permitting authority at
the same time, information on other TWTDS that handle sewage sludge
from the applicant would not be necessary. Due to the tiered permitting
scheme (58 FR 9404), however, the limited information requested from
non-discharging TWTDS, and the possibility of inter-state transport,
this is not always the case.
If the applicant is certain that the permitting authority has
received an application from all other TWTDS that handle its sewage
sludge, today's final rule allows it to reference the appropriate
permit applications or include copies of the relevant sections. In
addition, the Director's waiver authority could be used to eliminate
duplication. A State that requires all TWTDS to submit full permit
applications and believes it has access to all the necessary
information could waive submittal of the requested information in
Secs. 122.21(q)(8)(ii) and (vi) for all its TWTDS once the State sewage
sludge management program has been approved by EPA. EPA believes that
the information requested in this section should be provided and the
rule provides adequate ways of avoiding unnecessary duplication.
The previous requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii) asks for the
``name of any distributors when the sludge will be disposed of through
distribution and marketing.'' This requires the names of any facilities
that sell or give away EQ sewage sludge. EPA believes that EQ sewage
sludge should be treated similarly to other fertilizers. Thus, EPA
proposed deleting the names of distributors in the December 1995
proposal. The five comments received on this issue all supported the
proposal. For the reasons mentioned above, Sec. 122.21(q)(8), as
promulgated, is unchanged from the proposal.
9. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
Proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9) requested information on sewage sludge
that is land applied in bulk form. This section applies only where the
applicant's permit must contain all applicable Part 503 requirements
for land application. This section does not apply if the applicant
generates EQ sewage sludge subject to Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(iv) or if the
applicant places sewage sludge in a bag or other container for sale or
give-away for application to the land subject to Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(v).
In neither of these cases is it necessary to control the ultimate land
application through a permit. Thus the applicant does not need to
provide the information requested in Sec. 122.21(q)(9) as part of the
application. The section also does not apply if the applicant provides
sewage sludge to another ``person who prepares'' subject to
Sec. 122.21(q)(8)(vi). In this case, the ultimate land application
would be controlled by the subsequent ``person who prepares.''
EPA received numerous comments on different aspects of
Sec. 122.21(q)(9). Most of the commenters suggested different ways to
obtain the information requested in this section. Some commenters
believe that this information should not be requested in a permit
application but rather during the life of the permit as new sites are
added. Other commenters stated that information on land application
sites would be available through annual reports. This issue of how to
obtain adequate information without duplication or overloading the
permitting authority with unnecessary information was addressed during
the original development of Part 501 and Part 503.
After reviewing the comments, EPA believes that its current
approach is well grounded. If information is known about land
application sites at the time of permit application, it should be
submitted to the permitting authority. If information is not known, a
land application plan must be submitted. Reports are only required from
Class I sludge management facilities unless required on a case-by-case
basis in a permit. Some States may have more extensive requirements,
but this rule only provides the Federal requirements. As mentioned
previously, if the required information is already available, the
permitting authority may waive the requirement or the permit
application may simply reference the information provided elsewhere.
Several commenters thought that it would be more appropriate to require
information from appliers. However, appliers who do not change the
sewage sludge quality are not TWTDS and are therefore not required to
apply for a permit. Generators should be aware of where and how their
sewage sludge is land applied. EPA believes it is feasible for
generators to obtain information from appliers and submit it with their
permit application. As mentioned earlier, this section is not
applicable if a TWTDS produces all EQ sewage sludge. The land
application plan serves as the vehicle to allow TWTDS to add sites
during the life of the permit without requiring a major permit
modification. The following paragraphs describe the individual
requirements in this section. The final rule is the same as the
proposal unless otherwise mentioned.
Paragraph (i) of Sec. 122.21(q)(9) clarifies the existing
requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x) which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (ii) asks how the applicant
will satisfy the Sec. 503.12(i) notification requirement for land
application sites in a State other than the State where the sewage
sludge is prepared.
Paragraphs (A)-(C) of Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) ask the applicant to
identify the land application site. These questions request locational
information which meets the specifications of EPA's Locational Data
Policy and supports the Watershed Protection Approach by providing
permit writers and other
[[Page 42455]]
Federal and State environmental managers with a means of geographically
locating land application sites.
Paragraphs (D) and (E) of Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) ask the applicant
to identify the land application site owner and applier, if different
from the applicant. EPA believes that this information is necessary in
order to ensure that the permit is issued to the correct party. These
proposed paragraphs clarify and expand on existing requirements at
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii).
One of the land application management practices in Sec. 503.14
mandates that bulk sewage sludge shall not be applied to land at
greater than the agronomic rate. Therefore, paragraphs (F) and (G) of
Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) ask the applicant to identify the type of land
application site, the type of vegetation grown on that site, if known
at the time of permit application, and the vegetation's nitrogen
requirement. This information enables the permit writer to calculate an
appropriate permit management practice regarding agronomic rate. EPA
recognizes that different crops may be grown on a site during the life
of a permit. If the crop for a site is not known or likely to change,
the applicant should submit whatever information is available.
Paragraph (H) of Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) requests information on
vector attraction reduction measures undertaken at the land application
site. Before sewage sludge is applied to the land, it must meet the
requirements for vector attraction reduction in Sec. 503.33. These
measures may be undertaken either by the ``person who prepares'' sewage
sludge or by the operator of the land application site.
Proposed paragraph (G) of Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) asked the
applicant to submit any existing ground-water monitoring data for the
land application site. This was intended to give the permitting
authorities ground-water monitoring data for land application sites in
order to ensure that sewage sludge application rates are appropriately
protective of ground water. Five commenters responded to this
requirement. Since ground-water monitoring at land application sites is
not required by Part 503, some commenters thought that this requirement
could cause facilities that voluntarily monitor to discontinue their
monitoring program rather than submit all their data to the permitting
authority. Another commenter mentioned that many sites have commercial
fertilizers applied along with sewage sludge so that it is difficult to
relate the results of ground-water testing to sewage sludge. After
considering the comments, EPA agrees that available ground-water data
should not be required on a permit application, and has not promulgated
proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii)(G). If States require ground-water
monitoring, they may request this information. EPA will only ask for
data on ground-water monitoring if it is a specific permit condition.
Section 501.15(a)(2)(ix) asks for information necessary to
determine if the site is appropriate for land application and a
description of how the site will be managed. This requirement could be
interpreted in different ways. Today's rule clearly specifies site
management requirements in paragraphs (F)-(H) of Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii)
by asking for the type of site, the vegetation grown, the nitrogen
requirements, and any on-site vector attraction reduction activities.
Permitting authorities need to be assured that sewage sludge is
being used in accordance with Part 503. Detailed information on site
management is often obtained through operating plans, annual reports,
and inspections. In some situations, permitting authorities may choose
to get this information before issuing a permit. Paragraph (I) has been
added to Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii) to emphasize that the permitting
authority can request other site management information if it is needed
to identify appropriate permit conditions.
Section 122.21(q)(9)(iv) requests information that the permitting
authority needs in order to verify whether the Sec. 503.12(e)(2)(i)
requirement for appliers of bulk sewage sludge subject to cumulative
pollutant loading rates (CPLRs) has been met. A cumulative pollutant
loading rate, as defined in Sec. 503.11(f) is ``the maximum amount of
an inorganic pollutant that can be applied to an area of land.'' This
information enables EPA to ensure that the CPLRs are not exceeded when
more than one facility is sending sewage sludge subject to CPLRs to the
same site.
Section 122.21(q)(9)(v) restates the requirement in existing
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(ix) for information on land application sites not
identified at the time of permit application. EPA received numerous
comments on paragraph (E) of this section. Many commenters discussed
the difficulties involved in providing notice to ``landowners and
occupants adjacent to or abutting the proposed land application site.''
Numerous questions have been raised about exactly what this language
means.
EPA agrees that States should provide public notice as required by
State and local law, when such laws exist. However, some States and
municipalities have no provisions for public notice of land application
sites. Section 122.21(q)(9)(v)(E) of today's rule requires that land
application plans include provisions for public notice of new land
application sites. If State or local law includes public notice
provisions, these must be followed. Where State or local law does not
require advance public notice, the land application plan must include
specific provisions stating how the general public will be apprized of
new sites.
10. Surface Disposal
Section 122.21(q)(10) requests information on sewage sludge that is
placed on a surface disposal site. By definition, a sewage sludge
surface disposal site is a TWTDS. Many surface disposal site owner/
operators, however, do not have to complete this section, but instead
submit the limited background information required by
Sec. 122.21(c)(2)(iii). The applicant is required to provide the
information requested by Sec. 122.21(q)(10) only if the surface
disposal site is already covered by an NPDES permit; if the owner/
operator is requesting site-specific pollutant limits; or if the
permitting authority is requiring a full application.
Paragraph (i) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10) clarifies the existing
requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x) which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (ii) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10)
requires that the applicant provide the name or number, address,
telephone number, and amount of sewage sludge placed on each surface
disposal site that the applicant does not own or operate. This
paragraph clarifies and expands on existing requirements at
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii). EPA believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the permit is issued to the correct
party.
Paragraph (iii) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10) requests detailed information
on each active sewage sludge unit at each surface disposal site that
the applicant owns or operates. A ``sewage sludge unit'' is defined in
Sec. 503.21(n) as ``land on which only sewage sludge is placed for
final disposal.'' A ``surface disposal site'' is ``an area of land that
contains one or more sewage sludge units.'' Information on each active
sewage sludge unit is necessary because Part 503 provides for different
pollutant limits, monitoring requirements, and management practices for
each unit. This information enables the permitting authority to
establish proper permit conditions.
[[Page 42456]]
Paragraphs (A)-(C) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) ask the applicant to
identify the surface disposal site by submitting the same information
requested in Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(iii). This information may have already
been provided if the surface disposal site is located at a POTW. The
information is requested in this section in order to adequately locate
``sludge-only'' surface disposal sites that have been asked to submit a
full permit application.
Paragraph (K) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) requests information on
sewage sludge sent to the active sewage sludge unit by any facility
other than the applicant's. This information helps the permit writer to
determine which requirements apply to the surface disposal site owner/
operator and which apply to the facility which sends sewage sludge to
the surface disposal site. As previously mentioned, the applicant may
reference substantially similar information already submitted to the
permitting authority.
Paragraph (L) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) requests information on
vector attraction reduction measures undertaken at the active sewage
sludge unit. Before sewage sludge is placed on an active sewage sludge
unit, it must meet the requirements for vector attraction reduction in
Sec. 503.33. Since vector attraction reduction measures may be
performed either by the facility preparing sewage sludge or by the
surface disposal site owner/operator, EPA believes that both should be
required to supply information on their practices.
Section 503.24(n)(2) requires surface disposal sites to demonstrate
by way of a ground water monitoring program or certification that
sludge placed on an active sewage sludge unit does not contaminate the
underlying aquifer. In order to ensure that this requirement is
implemented, paragraph (M) of Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) requests
information on ground water monitoring programs or certifications.
Because many communities rely on ground water as a source of drinking
water, EPA believes that this information is necessary to protect
public health and the environment.
After August 18, 1993, only surface disposal sites showing good
cause may apply for site-specific pollutant limits. Paragraph (N) of
Sec. 122.21(q)(10)(iii) requests the information necessary for the
permit writer to determine whether such site-specific limits are
warranted. This information must include a demonstration that the
values for site parameters at the applicant's site differ from those
used to develop the surface disposal pollutant limits in Part 503.
11. Incineration
Section 122.21(q)(11) requests information on sewage sludge that is
fired in a sewage sludge incinerator. According to Sec. 503.41(k), a
sewage sludge incinerator is ``an enclosed device in which only sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.'' A sewage sludge incinerator is a
TWTDS and is required to submit a full permit application.
Paragraph (i) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11) clarifies the existing
requirement at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(x) which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (ii) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11)
requires that the applicant provide the name or identifying number,
address, telephone number, and amount of sewage sludge fired in each
sewage sludge incinerator that the applicant does not own or operate.
This paragraph clarifies existing requirements at
Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(viii). EPA believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the permit is issued to the correct
party.
Paragraph (iii) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11) requests detailed information
on each sewage sludge incinerator that the applicant owns or operates.
Paragraph (B) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) asks the applicant to identify
the sewage sludge incinerator by latitude and longitude. There is no
requirement to submit a topographic map because EPA believes all sewage
sludge incinerators are located at treatment works that generate sewage
sludge. Therefore, they are already required to submit a topographic
map under the requirements of Sec. 122.21(q)(5).
Paragraph (C) of paragraph (iii) requests the total amount of
sewage sludge fired annually in each incinerator. This information is
necessary because the monitoring requirements for sewage sludge
incinerators are based on the total amount fired.
Paragraphs (D) and (E) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) request
information on compliance with the beryllium and mercury National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Section
503.43 paragraphs (a) and (b) require compliance with these standards
through a cross-reference to 40 CFR Part 61 subparts C and E. If the
incinerator is required to perform stack testing, these paragraphs
would require the applicant to submit a report of that testing.
Under Sec. 503.43, the pollutant limits applicable to each sewage
sludge incinerator are calculated based on factors unique to each
incinerator. Paragraphs (F), (G), and (H) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii)
require each applicant to submit these factors for their
incinerator(s). Calculating pollutant limits on an individual basis
allows the actual performance of each incinerator and actual site
conditions, such as topography, to be taken into account. EPA believes
that this is more appropriate than mandating national pollutant
limitations for sewage sludge incinerators.
EPA received one comment on this issue. The commenter mistakenly
believed that all incinerator applicants would have to resubmit
information on their performance tests and air modeling. Incinerator
applicants that have already submitted this information to the
permitting authority do not have to resubmit. Permit applications have
already been completed for most currently operating sewage sludge
incinerators. This requirement applies to incinerators for which
complete permit applications have not yet been submitted. At the next
permit cycle an incinerator permittee can reference the previously
submitted data unless the permitting authority requires new testing.
In the development of Part 503, EPA determined that it would be
infeasible to establish individual limits for each hydrocarbon in
sewage sludge incinerator exit gas. Instead, the Agency adopted a 100
ppm total hydrocarbon (THC) limit and required continuous THC
monitoring to show compliance. Part 503 was amended on February 25,
1994 (59 FR 9095) to allow sewage sludge incinerators whose exit gas
does not exceed 100 ppm carbon monoxide (CO) to show compliance with
the THC operational standard by monitoring CO instead of THC.
Paragraphs (H), (I), and (J) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii)
requested information on the incinerator's exit gas concentration of
THC or CO, oxygen, and moisture.
One commenter questioned the validity of this requirement. The
commenter stated that since THC or CO data must be monitored
continuously, a request for one data point on the permit application is
meaningless. EPA agrees with this comment and has deleted these
questions. In today's rule Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii)(I) asks whether the
applicant monitors THC or CO.
Many of the incinerator's site-specific factors that are used to
calculate pollutant limits and compliance with the operational standard
are highly dependent on the temperature at which the incinerator is
operated and the rate at which sewage sludge is fed into the
incinerator. For most incinerators, these parameters are determined
during an
[[Page 42457]]
initial performance test. EPA asked for the information in paragraphs
(K) through (O) of proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) in order to ensure
appropriate pollutant limits and that the incinerator would be operated
within the parameters of the original performance test.
After reviewing these questions, EPA is making some changes in
today's rule. The information in paragraphs (K), (N), and (O) of
proposed Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) remain unchanged but the paragraphs
are renumbered as (J), (M), and (N). One commenter thought that
proposed paragraph (O) is unnecessary and unclear. Part 503 requires
that a sewage sludge incinerator's air pollution control devices be
operated in a manner that is not significantly different from how they
were operated during the performance test. This paragraph requests the
performance test operating parameters for the air pollution control
devices so compliance with this requirement can be determined.
Therefore it is being promulgated as proposed.
The information requested in proposed paragraphs (L) and (M) is
from the performance test. Proposed paragraph (L) is finalized as
paragraph (K). To be consistent with the amendments to Part 503, the
term ``combustion temperature'' is changed to ``maximum performance
test combustion temperature'', which is the arithmetic mean of the
maximum combustion temperature for each of the runs in a performance
test. Proposed paragraph (M) is finalized as paragraph (L) and is
modified to clarify that the requested sewage sludge feed rate is that
used during the performance test.
Proposed paragraphs (P) and (Q) of Sec. 122.21(q)(11)(iii) are
promulgated unchanged except for being renumbered as paragraphs (O) and
(P). They request information on the monitoring equipment and air
pollution control devices installed on the incinerator. Information on
this equipment is necessary to ensure that the facility complies with
the management practices at Sec. 503.45.
12. Disposal in a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Section 122.21(q)(12) requests information on sewage sludge that is
sent to a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF). Section 503.4 states
that sewage sludge sent to a MSWLF that complies with the requirements
in 40 CFR Part 258 constitutes compliance with sec. 405(d) of the CWA.
The questions in Sec. 122.21(q)(12) are necessary to ensure the
availability of accurate information about a MSWLF and the sewage
sludge that is sent there.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Sec. 122.21(q)(12) clarify existing
requirements at Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(v), (viii), and (x) that request
information on other permits, the location of disposal sites, and the
annual sludge production volume. Paragraph (iii) requests information
on the sewage sludge quality to ensure that it is acceptable for a
MSWLF. Paragraph (iv) requests available information on whether the
MSWLF is in compliance with Part 258.
EPA received three comments on this section. All three commenters
stated that permittees should not be asked about landfill compliance
with Part 258 since they believe this is the responsibility of the
landfill. EPA disagrees with the commenters and this section remains as
proposed. Section 503.4 states that disposal in a MSWLF that complies
with the requirements in 40 CFR part 258 constitutes compliance with
section 405(d) of the CWA. Sewage sludge that is placed in a MSWLF does
not have to meet any of the pollutant limits or pathogen and vector
requirements that are contained in Part 503. Protection of public
health and the environment is provided by the Part 258 requirements. If
sewage sludge is disposed in a landfill that is not in compliance with
part 258, there is no way to know if the landfill is designed and
operated so as to protect the environment from any potential problems
from the sewage sludge. The preamble to Part 503 (58 FR 9248) explains
the relationship between Parts 258 and 503.
13. Contractors
Section 122.21(q)(13) requires the applicant to provide contractor
information. The applicant is required to identify all contractors
responsible for any sewage sludge related operation or maintenance
aspects of the TWTDS, and specify their responsibilities. The
permitting authority uses this information to determine who has primary
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the TWTDS.
EPA received four comments on this section. One commenter agreed
with EPA's proposal to identify all contractors, one disagreed, one
wanted information on the proposal but only on appliers, and one wanted
more clarification about the scope of the requirement. EPA agrees that
TWTDS cannot by contracting out sewage sludge use or disposal avoid
their legal obligation to comply with Part 503 and any permit
requirements. However, EPA believes it is helpful to the permitting
authorities and the general public to know all parties involved in
sewage sludge management at a facility. This requirement remains as
proposed.
14. Other Information
Section 122.21(q)(14) requires the applicant to report any
information necessary to determine the appropriate standards for
permitting under 40 CFR Part 503, and any other information the
permitting authority may request and reasonably require to assess the
sewage sludge use and disposal practices, to determine whether to issue
a permit, or to identify appropriate permit requirements. This
paragraph restates the existing requirements in Sec. 501.15(a)(2)(xi)
and (xii). EPA received one comment on this section. The commenter
agreed with the proposal, and it remains as proposed.
15. Signature
Section 122.21(q)(15) requires that an authorized official sign and
certify the form in compliance with 40 CFR 122.22. This ensures that
the person signing the form has the authority to speak for and legally
bind the permittee. No comments were received on this section and it
remains as proposed.
H. Permit Conditions for POTWs (40 CFR 122.44(j))
Under existing Sec. 122.21(j)(4), any POTW with an approved
pretreatment program must provide a written technical evaluation of the
need to revise local limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1). This provision
requires that the local limits evaluation be done prior to permit
issuance. States and municipalities have expressed concerns that such
evaluation would be more appropriate after permit issuance, so as to
avoid the need for a second technical evaluation if the POTW's permit
limits are revised in the new permit.
In response to these concerns, the Agency proposed to change this
from an application requirement to a POTW pretreatment program
requirement at Sec. 403.8(f)(4). EPA did not receive any comments on
this change but instead codifies this requirement at Sec. 122.44(j),
which lists pretreatment program permit conditions that must be in a
POTW's permit. As such the requirement to provide a written evaluation
of the need to revise local limits will be included in permits. POTWs
must evaluate their local limits during each permit cycle, rather than
during the permit application process.
I. State Program Requirements (40 CFR Parts 123 & 501)
EPA intends to maintain consistency between the NPDES permit
application
[[Page 42458]]
requirements of Part 122 and the State sewage sludge permitting
requirements of Parts 123 and 501. This reflects EPA's belief that a
TWTDS should submit the same application information regardless of
whether the permitting authority regulates sludge management under an
approved NPDES or under a non-NPDES program. In fact, EPA published
changes to Parts 123 and 501 (63 FR 45114, August 24, 1998) that
consolidate all State sewage sludge management requirements under Part
501. As part of this process, the December 6, 1995 proposal of today's
rule included revisions to the language of Secs. 123.25(a)(4) and
501.15(a)(2) to modify the sewage sludge information requirements. All
four comments received by EPA supported having the same minimum
requirements for EPA and authorized States.
Today's rule adds paragraph 122.21(q) to the list in
Sec. 123.25(a)(4) of provisions that States must implement to be
granted NPDES authorization. The specific permit information
requirements contained in Sec. 122.21(q) of today's final rule are
referenced in Sec. 501.15(d)(1)(i)(B). The August 24, 1998 final rule
states that Sec. 501.15(d)(1)(i)(B) is not effective until today's rule
becomes effective. This was necessary because Sec. 122.21(q) was not
yet final when the Part 501 and 123 revisions were published.
Therefore, the August 24, 1998 final rule renumbered Sec. 501.15(a)(2)
as Sec. 501.15(a)(4) and retained that section so that there would
still be specific sludge permit information requirements in effect. The
intent was that this new Sec. 501.15(a)(4) would be deleted upon
publication of today's rule. Today's final rule deletes
Sec. 501.15(a)(4) and makes Sec. 501.15(d)(1)(i)(B) effective on
December 2, 1999.
III. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4,
1993)), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or Tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and Tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and Tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
EPA has concluded that this rule will create a mandate on State,
local, and Tribal governments and that the Federal government will not
provide the funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the
State, local, and/or Tribal governments in complying with the mandate.
In developing this rule, EPA consulted with State, local, and Tribal
governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of this rule. EPA made efforts to consult with
interested stakeholders during the development of the December 6, 1995,
proposed rule. In late 1993 and early 1994, EPA sought feedback on
draft forms and other elements of the proposal from States with
approved NPDES programs, local governments, the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), the Water Environment
Federation (WEF), and several environmental groups. In response to this
outreach effort, EPA received written comments from a dozen States,
several municipalities, and from AMSA. EPA also met with State and
municipal representatives and participated in a conference call with
representatives from ten POTWs and two States.
EPA received 60 comments during the public comment period on the
proposed rule and made numerous changes to the rule and the forms in
response to the comments. Stakeholders raised a number of issues
related to the possible impacts of the municipal application
requirements on local governments. The most significant issue concerned
the required sampling data. States were particularly concerned about
the ability of small municipalities to provide the data. To address
this concern, EPA modified the regulation to reduce the information
required from small facilities under 0.1 mgd. Many municipalities and
States were also concerned about redundant information. EPA resolved
this issue by allowing States to waive requirements for information
otherwise available to them and by allowing facilities to reference
information they have already provided in annual reports, discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs), or other reports. The final rule provides
flexibility to the States and reduces the reporting burden for
regulated facilities while ensuring that EPA and the States will obtain
the information necessary to issue permits that protect the
environment.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
[[Page 42459]]
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
UMRA section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, UMRA section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under UMRA section 203 a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that today's rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more to
either State, local and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any year. To the extent enforceable duties arise as a
result of today's rule on State, local and tribal governments and the
private sector, such enforceable duties do not result in a significant
regulatory action being imposed upon State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector since the estimated aggregate cost
of compliance for the regulated entities is not expected to exceed $4.8
million annually. Today's rule streamlines the permit application
requirements for municipal and sludge application requirements to
provide additional flexibility to the States in complying with current
regulatory requirements and reduce the burden on affected governments.
Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments and thus this rule is not subject to the requirements in
section 203 of UMRA. The amendments will not significantly affect small
governments because as explained above, this rulemaking streamlines
current regulatory requirements and provides additional flexibility to
meet regulatory requirements. The small governments affected by this
rule are tribal and municipal governments and the rule minimizes the
impact on these small government entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0086. A copy may be obtained from
Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; or by
calling (202) 260-2740.
The final rule consolidates application requirements from existing
regulations into a ``modular'' permit application form, thereby
streamlining and clarifying the process for permit applicants. EPA has
developed forms 2A and 2S and the corresponding reporting requirements
at Sec. 122.21(j) and Sec. 122.21(q) in order to consolidate the
application requirements for POTWs and TWTDS. EPA has promulgated the
Form 2A requirement under the statutory authority of section 402 of the
CWA, as amended. Similarly, the Agency has promulgated the Form 2S
requirement under section 405 of the CWA, as amended. Both operating
statutes allow EPA to consider regulatory options to minimize the
forms' economic impacts on small entities.
The annual reporting and recordkeeping costs and burden for this
collection of information are described in the following paragraphs.
For Form 2A the total annual costs are $4,100,711. There are 731
major applicants, 1230 minor applicants between 0.1 and 1.0 mgd, and
1230 minor applicants <0.1 mgd.="" the="" cost="" per="" major="" (over="" 1.0="" mgd)="" applicant="" is="" $4435,="" the="" cost="" per="" minor="" applicant="" between="" 0.1="" and="" 1.0="" mgd="" is="" $477,="" and="" the="" cost="" per="" minor="" applicant=""><0.1 mgd="" is="" $221.="" the="" average="" cost="" per="" applicant="" is="" $1285.="" total="" annual="" burden="" is="" 30,593="" hours.="" there="" are="" 731="" major="" applicants,="" 1230="" minor="" applicants="" between="" 0.1="" and="" 1.0="" mgd,="" and="" 1230="" minor="" applicants=""><0.1 mgd.="" the="" burden="" per="" major="" applicant="" is="" 24="" hours,="" the="" burden="" per="" minor="" applicant="" between="" 0.1="" and="" 1.0="" mgd="" is="" 6.2="" hours,="" and="" the="" burden="" per="" minor="" applicant=""><0.1 mgd="" is="" 4.4="" hours.="" the="" average="" burden="" per="" applicant="" is="" 9.6="" hours.="" for="" form="" 2s="" the="" total="" annual="" costs="" are="" $714,823.="" there="" are="" 3911="" npdes="" potw="" applicants,="" 221="" npdes="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" applicants,="" 38="" sludge-only="" potw="" applicants,="" and="" 2="" sludge-only="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" applicants.="" the="" costs="" per="" applicant="" are:="" npdes="" potw="" $183,="" npdes="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" $551,="" sludge-only="" potw="" $171,="" and="" sludge-only="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" $242.="" the="" average="" cost="" per="" applicant="" is="" $207.="" total="" annual="" burden="" is="" 32,628="" hours.="" there="" are="" 3911="" npdes="" potw="" applicants,="" 221="" npdes="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" applicants,="" 38="" sludge-only="" potw="" applicants,="" and="" 2="" sludge-only="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" applicants.="" the="" burdens="" per="" applicants="" are:="" npdes="" potw="" 9.5="" hours,="" npdes="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" 9.5="" hours,="" sludge-only="" potw="" 3.9="" hours,="" and="" sludge-only="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" 2.5="" hours.="" the="" average="" burden="" per="" applicant="" is="" 9.4="" hours.="" overall,="" for="" both="" form="" 2a="" and="" form="" 2s="" the="" total="" annual="" costs="" are="" $4,815,534="" and="" the="" total="" annual="" burden="" is="" 63,221="" hours.="" the="" annual="" public="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" burden="" for="" this="" collection="" of="" information="" is="" estimated="" to="" average="" 9.5="" hours="" per="" response.="" burden="" means="" the="" total="" time,="" effort,="" or="" financial="" resources="" expended="" by="" persons="" to="" generate,="" maintain,="" retain,="" or="" disclose="" or="" provide="" information="" to="" or="" for="" a="" federal="" agency.="" this="" includes="" the="" time="" needed="" to="" review="" instructions;="" develop,="" acquire,="" install,="" and="" utilize="" technology="" and="" systems="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" collecting,="" validating,="" and="" verifying="" information,="" processing="" and="" maintaining="" information="" and="" disclosing="" and="" providing="" information;="" adjust="" the="" existing="" ways="" to="" comply="" with="" any="" previously="" applicable="" instructions="" and="" requirements;="" train="" personnel="" to="" be="" able="" to="" respond="" to="" a="" collection="" of="" information;="" search="" data="" sources;="" complete="" and="" review="" the="" collection="" of="" information;="" and="" transmit="" or="" otherwise="" disclose="" the="" information.="" an="" agency="" may="" not="" conduct="" or="" sponsor,="" and="" a="" person="" is="" not="" required="" to="" respond="" to="" a="" collection="" of="" information="" unless="" it="" displays="" a="" currently="" valid="" omb="" control="" number.="" the="" omb="" control="" numbers="" for="" epa's="" regulations="" are="" displayed="" in="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 9="" and="" 48="" cfr="" chapter="" 15.="" epa="" is="" amending="" the="" table="" in="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 9="" of="" currently="" approved="" icr="" control="" numbers="" issued="" by="" omb="" for="" various="" regulations="" to="" list="" the="" information="" requirements="" contained="" in="" this="" final="" rule.="" e.="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" (rfa),="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 601="" et="" seq.,="" generally="" requires="" an="" administrative="" agency="" as="" part="" of="" any="" rulemaking="" to="" prepare="" a="" regulatory="" flexibility="" analysis="" to="" describe="" the="" impact="" of="" rules="" on="" small="" entities.="" under="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 605(b),="" no="" regulatory="" flexibility="" analysis="" is="" required,="" however,="" where="" the="" head="" of="" an="" agency="" certifies="" that="" the="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" under="" rfa="" section="" 605(b),="" epa="" [[page="" 42460]]="" certifies="" that="" today's="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" in="" developing="" these="" regulations,="" epa="" considered="" their="" effects="" on="" small="" entities.="" section="" 601(6)="" of="" the="" rfa="" defines="" small="" entities="" as="" small="" businesses,="" small="" governmental="" entities,="" and="" small,="" not-for-="" profit="" organizations.="" the="" small="" entities="" affected="" by="" this="" rule="" include="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" and="" small="" businesses="" that="" own="" or="" operate="" wastewater="" treatment="" works="" and="" sludge="" facilities="" or="" sludge="" facilities="" only.="" about="" 16,080="" small="" entities="" are="" regulated="" by="" the="" rule.="" ninety-three="" percent="" of="" the="" small="" entities="" are="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions,="" i.e.,="" publicly="" owned="" treatment="" works="" (potws)="" and="" six="" percent="" are="" small="" businesses,="" i.e.,="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works.="" almost="" all="" of="" the="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" (99%)="" will="" be="" required="" to="" complete="" both="" the="" municipal="" and="" sewage="" sludge="" application="" forms;="" the="" rest="" will="" only="" have="" to="" complete="" the="" sewage="" sludge="" application="" form.="" the="" small="" businesses="" will="" only="" have="" to="" complete="" the="" sewage="" sludge="" application="" form.="" under="" the="" rfa,="" the="" term="" ``small="" governmental="" jurisdiction''="" means,="" among="" other="" things,="" governments="" of="" cities,="" counties,="" towns="" or="" special="" districts="" with="" a="" population="" of="" fewer="" than="" 50,000.="" to="" evaluate="" the="" economic="" impact="" on="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" subject="" to="" today's="" rule,="" epa="" looked="" at="" the="" effect="" on="" 5="" million="" gallons="" per="" day="" (mgd)="" or="" smaller="" potws,="" that="" is,="" those="" serving="" 50,000="" or="" less.="" epa="" cannot="" calculate="" from="" available="" data="" how="" many="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" own="" and="" operate="" potws="" that="" are="" subject="" to="" the="" rule.="" epa="" collects="" data="" on="" individual="" potw="" operations="" and="" these="" data="" are="" not="" aggregated="" by="" the="" supplying="" public="" entities.="" epa="" has="" data="" on="" potws="" by="" size,="" expressed="" in="" terms="" of="" mgd.="" with="" this="" information,="" epa="" can="" determine="" with="" a="" fair="" degree="" of="" certainty="" what="" size="" community="" any="" given="" potw="" serves.="" thus,="" for="" example,="" a="" 1="" mgd="" potw="" will="" be="" needed="" to="" serve="" a="" community="" of="" around="" 10,000.="" however,="" epa="" cannot="" determine="" the="" number="" of="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" operating="" potws="" by="" simply="" totaling="" the="" number="" of="" potws="" serving="" populations="" up="" to="" 50,000="" (as="" measured="" by="" mgd).="" this="" would="" overstate="" the="" number="" of="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" owning="" potws.="" the="" number="" of="" potws="" operated="" by="" public="" entities="" will="" obviously="" vary.="" a="" municipality="" (or="" sewerage="" district)="" may="" operate="" one="" or="" more="" potws="" or="" even="" none="" at="" all,="" if="" it="" chooses="" to="" rely="" on="" the="" services="" of="" a="" potw="" in="" a="" neighboring="" jurisdiction.="" consequently,="" the="" number="" of="" potws="" serving="" communities="" of="" 50,000="" or="" fewer="" does="" not="" correspond="" to="" the="" number="" of="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" with="" a="" population="" of="" 50,000="" or="" fewer.="" while,="" as="" explained="" above,="" epa="" could="" not="" determine="" how="" many="" potws="" a="" public="" entity="" owned="" and="" operated="" (and="" thus="" could="" not="" calculate="" the="" number="" of="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" affected="" by="" the="" rule),="" epa="" did="" calculate="" the="" economic="" impact="" on="" potws="" serving="" communities="" in="" a="" number="" of="" size="" ranges="" in="" order="" to="" evaluate="" the="" economic="" impact="" on="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" as="" defined="" in="" the="" rfa.="" the="" result="" of="" this="" analysis="" showed="" that="" in="" no="" event="" would="" the="" impact="" to="" the="" community="" owning="" the="" potw="" be="" significant="" as="" measured="" by="" the="" potw's="" (and="" consequently,="" the="" public="" entity's)="" operating="" revenues.="" epa="" concluded="" that="" the="" economic="" impact="" of="" the="" rule="" on="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" as="" defined="" in="" the="" rfa="" would="" not="" be="" substantial="" in="" any="" circumstances.="" for="" purposes="" of="" evaluating="" the="" economic="" impact,="" epa="" assumed="" that="" water="" supply="" revenues="" of="" a="" municipality="" with="" a="" population="" of="" 50,000="" were="" equivalent="" to="" those="" of="" a="" 5="" mgd="" potw.="" of="" the="" data="" that="" is="" available="" in="" the="" 1991-1992="" census="" of="" governments,="" the="" water="" supply="" revenue="" information="" is="" most="" likely="" to="" reflect="" revenues="" of="" potws,="" since="" customer="" billings="" generally="" cover="" water="" and="" sewer="" charges.="" to="" evaluate="" the="" economic="" impact="" on="" small="" businesses,="" epa="" looked="" at="" private="" sewerage="" systems="" with="" annual="" revenues="" of="" 6="" million="" or="" less,="" the="" small="" business="" administration's="" definition="" of="" a="" small="" business="" for="" the="" sewerage="" industry.="" epa="" considered="" a="" range="" of="" regulatory="" options="" for="" the="" proposed="" forms.="" in="" today's="" final="" rule,="" epa="" adopted="" the="" modular="" permit="" application="" approach="" for="" both="" potws="" and="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works.="" in="" the="" final="" rule,="" epa="" imposes="" fewer,="" more="" focused="" requirements="" for="" facilities="" discharging="" less="" than="" 1.0="" mgd,="" which="" are="" less="" likely="" to="" pollute="" and="" which="" have="" a="" lower="" capacity="" to="" absorb="" large="" monitoring="" costs.="" the="" smallest="" facilities,="" less="" than="" 0.1="" mgd,="" complete="" only="" eight="" basic="" questions="" and="" provide="" information="" on="" only="" four="" pollutants.="" the="" more="" focused="" requirements="" result="" from="" adjustments="" that="" are="" appropriate="" to="" these="" less="" ``complex''="" facilities.="" for="" purposes="" of="" evaluating="" the="" economic="" impact="" of="" this="" rule="" on="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions,="" epa="" compared="" costs="" with="" average="" annual="" water="" supply="" revenues="" for="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" obtained="" from="" the="" 1991-1992="" census="" of="" governments.="" because="" annual="" revenues="" for="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" were="" not="" available,="" in="" evaluating="" the="" economic="" impact="" on="" small="" businesses,="" epa="" used="" the="" average="" water="" supply="" revenue="" figure="" for="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions="" as="" a="" proxy="" for="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works.="" for="" both="" small="" potws="" and="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works,="" epa="" used="" the="" costs="" for="" compliance="" estimated="" in="" the="" icr.="" epa's="" assessment="" shows="" that="" the="" costs="" of="" complying="" with="" today's="" rule="" are="" not="" significant,="" even="" for="" very="" small="" potws="" and="" privately-owned="" treatment="" works.="" the="" total="" cost="" of="" complying="" with="" today's="" rule="" for="" all="" potws="" and="" privately-owned="" treatment="" works="" is="" $4,815,534="" and="" consists="" entirely="" of="" paperwork="" and="" testing="" costs="" associated="" with="" collecting="" the="" required="" information="" and="" completing="" the="" forms.="" the="" five-year="" compliance="" cost="" estimates="" for="" small="" potws="" that="" are="" subject="" to="" both="" sets="" of="" application="" requirements="" are:="" $404="" for="" potws="" less="" than="" 0.1="" mgd;="" $660="" for="" potws="" between="" 0.1="" and="" 1.0="" mgd;="" and="" $4,618="" for="" potws="" between="" 1.0="" and="" 5.0="" mgd.="" the="" five-year="" compliance="" cost="" estimate="" for="" small="" potws="" that="" are="" subject="" only="" to="" the="" sludge="" application="" requirements="" are="" $172.="" the="" five-year="" compliance="" cost="" estimate="" for="" the="" vast="" majority="" of="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works,="" that="" are="" subject="" only="" to="" the="" sludge="" application="" requirements,="" is="" $551.="" the="" five-year="" compliance="" cost="" for="" a="" few="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" that="" don't="" have="" wastewater="" discharges="" is="" only="" $242.="" the="" annual="" cost="" for="" a="" small="" potw="" ranges="" from="" 0.02="" to="" 0.09="" percent="" of="" the="" average="" annual="" water="" supply="" revenues="" of="" these="" small="" governmental="" jurisdictions,="" depending="" on="" their="" size="" and="" whether="" or="" not="" they="" have="" to="" complete="" one="" or="" both="" application="" forms.="" the="" annual="" cost="" for="" most="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" will="" be="" about="" 0.08="" percent="" of="" the="" average="" annual="" water="" supply="" revenue="" of="" these="" small="" businesses.="" the="" annual="" cost="" for="" a="" few="" small="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" without="" wastewater="" discharges="" is="" even="" smaller="" (0.03="" percent).="" thus,="" impacts="" on="" small="" treatment="" facilities="" will="" not="" be="" significant.="" pursuant="" to="" section="" 605(b)="" of="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act,="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 605(b),="" the="" agency="" certifies="" that="" today's="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" [[page="" 42461]]="" f.="" national="" technology="" transfer="" and="" advancement="" act="" section="" 12(d)="" of="" the="" national="" technology="" transfer="" and="" advancement="" act="" of="" 1995="" (``nttaa''),="" pub.="" l.="" no.="" 104-113,="" sec.="" 12(d)="" (15="" u.s.c.="" 272="" note)="" directs="" epa="" to="" use="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" in="" its="" regulatory="" activities="" unless="" to="" do="" so="" would="" be="" inconsistent="" with="" applicable="" law="" or="" otherwise="" impractical.="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" are="" technical="" standards="" (e.g.,="" materials="" specifications,="" test="" methods,="" sampling="" procedures,="" and="" business="" practices)="" that="" are="" developed="" or="" adopted="" by="" voluntary="" consensus="" standard="" bodies.="" the="" nttaa="" directs="" epa="" to="" provide="" congress,="" through="" omb,="" explanations="" when="" the="" agency="" decides="" not="" to="" use="" available="" and="" applicable="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards.="" this="" action="" does="" not="" involve="" technical="" standards.="" therefore,="" epa="" did="" not="" consider="" the="" use="" of="" any="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards.="" g.="" submission="" to="" congress="" and="" the="" general="" accounting="" office="" the="" congressional="" review="" act,="" 5="" u.s.c.="" section="" 801="" et.seq.,="" as="" added="" by="" the="" small="" business="" regulatory="" enforcement="" fairness="" act="" of="" 1996,="" generally="" provides="" that="" before="" a="" rule="" may="" take="" effect,="" the="" agency="" promulgating="" the="" rule="" must="" submit="" a="" rule="" report,="" which="" includes="" a="" copy="" of="" the="" rule,="" to="" each="" house="" of="" the="" congress="" and="" the="" comptroller="" general="" of="" the="" united="" states.="" epa="" will="" submit="" a="" report="" containing="" this="" rule="" and="" other="" required="" information="" to="" the="" u.s.="" senate,="" the="" u.s.="" house="" of="" representatives,="" and="" the="" comptroller="" general="" of="" the="" united="" states="" prior="" to="" publication="" of="" the="" rule="" in="" the="" federal="" register.="" a="" major="" rule="" cannot="" take="" effect="" until="" 60="" days="" after="" it="" is="" published="" in="" the="" federal="" register.="" this="" rule="" is="" not="" a="" ``major="" rule''="" as="" defined="" by="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 804(2).="" this="" rule="" will="" be="" effective="" on="" december="" 2,="" 1999.="" h.="" executive="" order="" 13045="" executive="" order="" 13045:="" ``protection="" of="" children="" from="" environmental="" health="" risks="" and="" safety="" risks''="" (62="" fr="" 19885,="" april="" 23,="" 1997)="" applies="" to="" any="" rule="" that:="" (1)="" is="" determined="" to="" be="" ``economically="" significant''="" as="" defined="" under="" e.o.="" 12866="" and="" (2)="" concerns="" an="" environmental="" health="" or="" safety="" risk="" that="" epa="" has="" reason="" to="" believe="" may="" have="" a="" disproportionate="" effect="" on="" children.="" if="" the="" regulatory="" action="" meets="" both="" criteria,="" the="" agency="" must="" evaluate="" the="" environmental="" health="" or="" safety="" effects="" of="" the="" planned="" rule="" on="" children,="" and="" explain="" why="" the="" planned="" regulation="" is="" preferable="" to="" other="" potentially="" effective="" and="" reasonably="" feasible="" alternatives="" considered="" by="" the="" agency.="" this="" rule="" is="" not="" subject="" to="" e.o.="" 13045="" because="" it="" is="" not="" an="" economically="" significant="" action="" as="" defined="" by="" e.o.="" 12866="" and="" it="" does="" not="" establish="" an="" environmental="" standard="" intended="" to="" mitigate="" health="" or="" safety="" risks.="" this="" rule="" is="" a="" procedural="" rule="" that="" streamlines="" existing="" regulations="" and="" application="" forms="" for="" municipal="" dischargers="" and="" treatment="" works="" who="" use="" or="" dispose="" of="" sludge.="" i.="" executive="" order="" 13084="" under="" executive="" order="" 13084,="" epa="" may="" not="" issue="" a="" regulation="" that="" is="" not="" required="" by="" statute,="" that="" significantly="" or="" uniquely="" affects="" the="" communities="" of="" indian="" tribal="" governments,="" and="" that="" imposes="" substantial="" direct="" compliance="" on="" those="" communities,="" unless="" the="" federal="" government="" provides="" the="" funds="" necessary="" to="" pay="" the="" direct="" compliance="" costs="" incurred="" by="" the="" tribal="" governments,="" or="" epa="" consults="" with="" those="" governments.="" if="" epa="" complies="" by="" consulting,="" executive="" order="" 13084="" requires="" epa="" to="" provide="" to="" the="" office="" of="" management="" and="" budget,="" in="" a="" separately="" identified="" section="" of="" the="" preamble="" to="" the="" rule,="" a="" description="" of="" the="" extent="" of="" epa's="" prior="" consultation="" with="" representatives="" of="" affected="" tribal="" governments,="" a="" summary="" of="" the="" nature="" of="" their="" concerns,="" and="" a="" statement="" supporting="" the="" need="" to="" issue="" the="" regulation.="" in="" addition,="" executive="" order="" 13084="" requires="" epa="" to="" develop="" an="" effective="" process="" permitting="" elected="" officials="" and="" other="" representatives="" of="" indian="" tribal="" governments="" ``to="" provide="" meaningful="" and="" timely="" input="" in="" the="" development="" of="" regulatory="" policies="" on="" matters="" that="" significantly="" or="" uniquely="" affect="" their="" communities.''="" today's="" rule="" does="" not="" significantly="" or="" uniquely="" affect="" the="" communities="" of="" indian="" tribal="" governments="" nor="" does="" it="" impose="" substantial="" direct="" compliance="" costs="" on="" them.="" this="" rule="" streamlines="" current="" regulatory="" requirements="" and="" provides="" additional="" flexibility="" to="" meet="" regulatory="" requirements.="" accordingly,="" the="" requirements="" of="" section="" 3(b)="" of="" executive="" order="" 13084="" do="" not="" apply="" to="" this="" rule.="" list="" of="" subjects="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 9="" environmental="" protection,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements.="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 122="" administrative="" practice="" and="" procedure,="" confidential="" business="" information,="" environmental="" protection,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements,="" sewage="" disposal,="" waste="" treatment="" and="" disposal,="" water="" pollution="" control.="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 123="" confidential="" business="" information,="" hazardous="" materials,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements,="" sewage="" disposal,="" waste="" treatment="" and="" disposal,="" water="" pollution="" control,="" penalties.="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 124="" administrative="" practice="" and="" procedure,="" air="" pollution="" control,="" hazardous="" waste,="" indian="" lands,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements,="" water="" pollution="" control,="" water="" supply.="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 501="" confidential="" business="" information,="" environmental="" protection,="" publicly="" owned="" treatment="" works,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements,="" sewage="" disposal,="" waste="" treatment="" and="" disposal.="" dated:="" july="" 15,="" 1999.="" carol="" m.="" browner,="" administrator.="" for="" the="" reasons="" set="" forth="" in="" the="" preamble,="" chapter="" i="" of="" title="" 40="" of="" the="" code="" of="" federal="" regulations="" is="" amended="" as="" follows:="" part="" 9--omb="" approvals="" under="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act="" 1.="" the="" authority="" citation="" for="" part="" 9="" continues="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" authority:="" 7="" u.s.c.="" 135="" et="" seq.,="" 136-136y;="" 15="" u.s.c.="" 2001,="" 2003,="" 2005,="" 2006,="" 2601-2671;="" 21="" u.s.c.="" 331j,="" 346a,="" 348;="" 31="" u.s.c.="" 9701;="" 33="" u.s.c.="" 1251="" et="" seq.,="" 1311,="" 1313d,="" 1314,="" 1318,="" 1321,="" 1326,="" 1330,="" 1342,="" 1344,="" 1345="" (d)="" and="" (e),="" 1361;="" e.o.="" 11735,="" 38="" fr="" 21243,="" 3="" cfr,="" 1971-1975="" comp.="" p.="" 973;="" 42="" u.s.c.="" 241,="" 242b,="" 243,="" 246,="" 300f,="" 300g,="" 300g-1,="" 300g-2,="" 300g-3,="" 300g-4,="" 300g-5,="" 300g-6,="" 300j-1,="" 300j-2,="" 300j-3,="" 300j-4,="" 300j-9,="" 1857="" et="" seq.,="" 6901-6992k,="" 7401-7671q,="" 7542,="" 9601-9657,="" 11023,="" 11048.="" 2.="" in="" sec.="" 9.1="" the="" table="" is="" amended="" by="" adding="" entries="" in="" numerical="" order="" under="" the="" indicated="" headings,="" removing="" the="" entry="" for="" ``122.21(j)(4)'',="" and="" revising="" the="" entry="" for="" ``123.25''="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 9.1="" omb="" approvals="" under="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" 40="" cfr="" citation="" omb="" control="" no.="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" epa="" administered="" permit="" programs:="" the="" national="" pollutant="" discharge="" elimination="" system="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" 122.21(j),="" (q)............................="" 2040-0086="" [[page="" 42462]]="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" 122.44(j).................................="" 2040-0150="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" state="" permit="" requirements="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" 123.25....................................="" 2040-0004="" 2040-0110="" 2040-0170="" 2040-0180="" 2040-0086="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" part="" 122--epa="" administered="" permit="" programs:="" the="" national="" pollutant="" discharge="" elimination="" system="" 3.="" the="" authority="" citation="" for="" part="" 122="" continues="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" authority:="" clean="" water="" act,="" 33="" u.s.c.="" 1251="" et="" seq.="" 4.="" section="" 122.2="" is="" amended="" by="" adding="" a="" definition="" for="" ``indian="" country''="" and="" ``twtds''="" in="" alphabetical="" order="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 122.2="" definitions.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" indian="" country="" means:="" (1)="" all="" land="" within="" the="" limits="" of="" any="" indian="" reservation="" under="" the="" jurisdiction="" of="" the="" united="" states="" government,="" notwithstanding="" the="" issuance="" of="" any="" patent,="" and,="" including="" rights-of-way="" running="" through="" the="" reservation;="" (2)="" all="" dependent="" indian="" communities="" with="" the="" borders="" of="" the="" united="" states="" whether="" within="" the="" originally="" or="" subsequently="" acquired="" territory="" thereof,="" and="" whether="" within="" or="" without="" the="" limits="" of="" a="" state;="" and="" (3)="" all="" indian="" allotments,="" the="" indian="" titles="" to="" which="" have="" not="" been="" extinguished,="" including="" rights-of-way="" running="" through="" the="" same.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" twtds="" means="" ``treatment="" works="" treating="" domestic="" sewage.''="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" 5.="" section="" 122.21="" is="" amended="" by="" revising="" paragraphs="" (a),="" (c)(2),="" the="" introductory="" text="" of="" paragraph="" (f),="" and="" paragraph="" (j);="" removing="" and="" reserving="" paragraph="" (d)(3);="" revising="" paragraph="" (e);="" and="" by="" adding="" paragraph="" (q)="" before="" the="" notes="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 122.21="" application="" for="" a="" permit="" (applicable="" to="" state="" programs,="" see="" sec.="" 123.25).="" (a)="" duty="" to="" apply.="" (1)="" any="" person="" who="" discharges="" or="" proposes="" to="" discharge="" pollutants="" or="" who="" owns="" or="" operates="" a="" ``sludge-only="" facility''="" whose="" sewage="" sludge="" use="" or="" disposal="" practice="" is="" regulated="" by="" part="" 503="" of="" this="" chapter,="" and="" who="" does="" not="" have="" an="" effective="" permit,="" except="" persons="" covered="" by="" general="" permits="" under="" sec.="" 122.28,="" excluded="" under="" sec.="" 122.3,="" or="" a="" user="" of="" a="" privately="" owned="" treatment="" works="" unless="" the="" director="" requires="" otherwise="" under="" sec.="" 122.44(m),="" must="" submit="" a="" complete="" application="" to="" the="" director="" in="" accordance="" with="" this="" section="" and="" part="" 124="" of="" this="" chapter.="" (2)="" application="" forms:="" (i)="" all="" applicants="" for="" epa-issued="" permits="" must="" submit="" applications="" on="" epa="" permit="" application="" forms.="" more="" than="" one="" application="" form="" may="" be="" required="" from="" a="" facility="" depending="" on="" the="" number="" and="" types="" of="" discharges="" or="" outfalls="" found="" there.="" application="" forms="" may="" be="" obtained="" by="" contacting="" the="" epa="" water="" resource="" center="" at="" (202)="" 260-7786="" or="" water="" resource="" center,="" u.s.="" epa,="" mail="" code="" 4100,="" 401="" m="" street,="" s.w.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20460="" or="" at="" the="" epa="" internet="" site="">www.epa.gov/owm/npdes.htm. Applications for EPA-issued permits must be
submitted as follows:
(A) All applicants, other than POTWs and TWTDS, must submit Form 1.
(B) Applicants for new and existing POTWs must submit the
information contained in paragraph (j) of this section using Form 2A or
other form provided by the director.
(C) Applicants for concentrated animal feeding operations or
aquatic animal production facilities must submit Form 2B.
(D) Applicants for existing industrial facilities (including
manufacturing facilities, commercial facilities, mining activities, and
silvicultural activities), must submit Form 2C.
(E) Applicants for new industrial facilities that discharge process
wastewater must submit Form 2D.
(F) Applicants for new and existing industrial facilities that
discharge only nonprocess wastewater must submit Form 2E.
(G) Applicants for new and existing facilities whose discharge is
composed entirely of storm water associated with industrial activity
must submit Form 2F, unless exempted by Sec. 122.26(c)(1)(ii). If the
discharge is composed of storm water and non-storm water, the applicant
must also submit, Forms 2C, 2D, and/or 2E, as appropriate (in addition
to Form 2F).
(H) Applicants for new and existing TWTDS, subject to paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section must submit the application information
required by paragraph (q) of this section, using Form 2S or other form
provided by the director.
(ii) The application information required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section may be electronically submitted if such method of
submittal is approved by EPA or the Director.
(iii) Applicants can obtain copies of these forms by contacting the
Water Management Divisions (or equivalent division which contains the
NPDES permitting function) of the EPA Regional Offices. The Regional
Offices' addresses can be found at Sec. 1.7 of this chapter.
(iv) Applicants for State-issued permits must use State forms which
must require at a minimum the information listed in the appropriate
paragraphs of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Permits under section 405(f) of CWA. All TWTDS whose sewage
sludge use or disposal practices are regulated by part 503 of this
chapter must submit permit applications according to the applicable
schedule in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) A TWTDS with a currently effective NPDES permit must submit a
permit application at the time of its next NPDES permit renewal
application. Such information must be submitted in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) Any other TWTDS not addressed under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) of
this section must submit the information listed in paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section to the Director within 1 year
after publication of a standard applicable to its sewage sludge use or
disposal practice(s), using Form 2S or another form provided by the
Director. The Director will determine when such TWTDS must submit a
full permit application.
(A) The TWTDS's name, mailing address, location, and status as
federal, State, private, public or other entity;
(B) The applicant's name, address, telephone number, and ownership
status;
(C) A description of the sewage sludge use or disposal practices.
Unless the sewage sludge meets the requirements of paragraph (q)(8)(iv)
of this section, the description must include the name and address of
any facility where sewage sludge is sent for treatment or disposal, and
the location of any land application sites;
(D) Annual amount of sewage sludge generated, treated, used or
disposed (estimated dry weight basis); and
(E) The most recent data the TWTDS may have on the quality of the
sewage sludge.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section,
the
[[Page 42463]]
Director may require permit applications from any TWTDS at any time if
the Director determines that a permit is necessary to protect public
health and the environment from any potential adverse effects that may
occur from toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
(iv) Any TWTDS that commences operations after promulgation of an
applicable ``standard for sewage sludge use or disposal'' must submit
an application to the Director at least 180 days prior to the date
proposed for commencing operations.
(d) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(e) Completeness. (1) The Director shall not issue a permit before
receiving a complete application for a permit except for NPDES general
permits. An application for a permit is complete when the Director
receives an application form and any supplemental information which are
completed to his or her satisfaction. The completeness of any
application for a permit shall be judged independently of the status of
any other permit application or permit for the same facility or
activity. For EPA administered NPDES programs, an application which is
reviewed under Sec. 124.3 of this chapter is complete when the Director
receives either a complete application or the information listed in a
notice of deficiency.
(2) A permit application shall not be considered complete if a
permitting authority has waived application requirements under
paragraphs (j) or (q) of this section and EPA has disapproved the
waiver application. If a waiver request has been submitted to EPA more
than 210 days prior to permit expiration and EPA has not disapproved
the waiver application 181 days prior to permit expiration, the permit
application lacking the information subject to the waiver application
shall be considered complete.
(f) Information requirements. All applicants for NPDES permits,
other than POTWs and other TWTDS, must provide the following
information to the Director, using the application form provided by the
Director. Additional information required of applicants is set forth in
paragraphs (g) through (k) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) Application requirements for new and existing POTWs. Unless
otherwise indicated, all POTWs and other dischargers designated by the
Director must provide, at a minimum, the information in this paragraph
to the Director, using Form 2A or another application form provided by
the Director. Permit applicants must submit all information available
at the time of permit application. The information may be provided by
referencing information previously submitted to the Director. The
Director may waive any requirement of this paragraph if he or she has
access to substantially identical information. The Director may also
waive any requirement of this paragraph that is not of material concern
for a specific permit, if approved by the Regional Administrator. The
waiver request to the Regional Administrator must include the State's
justification for the waiver. A Regional Administrator's disapproval of
a State's proposed waiver does not constitute final Agency action, but
does provide notice to the State and permit applicant(s) that EPA may
object to any State-issued permit issued in the absence of the required
information.
(1) Basic application information. All applicants must provide the
following information:
(i) Facility information. Name, mailing address, and location of
the facility for which the application is submitted;
(ii) Applicant information. Name, mailing address, and telephone
number of the applicant, and indication as to whether the applicant is
the facility's owner, operator, or both;
(iii) Existing environmental permits. Identification of all
environmental permits or construction approvals received or applied for
(including dates) under any of the following programs:
(A) Hazardous Waste Management program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subpart C;
(B) Underground Injection Control program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA);
(C) NPDES program under Clean Water Act (CWA);
(D) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act;
(E) Nonattainment program under the Clean Air Act;
(F) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) preconstruction approval under the Clean Air Act;
(G) Ocean dumping permits under the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act;
(H) Dredge or fill permits under section 404 of the CWA; and
(I) Other relevant environmental permits, including State permits;
(iv) Population. The name and population of each municipal entity
served by the facility, including unincorporated connector districts.
Indicate whether each municipal entity owns or maintains the collection
system and whether the collection system is separate sanitary or
combined storm and sanitary, if known;
(v) Indian country. Information concerning whether the facility is
located in Indian country and whether the facility discharges to a
receiving stream that flows through Indian country;
(vi) Flow rate. The facility's design flow rate (the wastewater
flow rate the plant was built to handle), annual average daily flow
rate, and maximum daily flow rate for each of the previous 3 years;
(vii) Collection system. Identification of type(s) of collection
system(s) used by the treatment works (i.e., separate sanitary sewers
or combined storm and sanitary sewers) and an estimate of the percent
of sewer line that each type comprises; and
(viii) Outfalls and other discharge or disposal methods. The
following information for outfalls to waters of the United States and
other discharge or disposal methods:
(A) For effluent discharges to waters of the United States, the
total number and types of outfalls (e.g, treated effluent, combined
sewer overflows, bypasses, constructed emergency overflows);
(B) For wastewater discharged to surface impoundments:
(1) The location of each surface impoundment;
(2) The average daily volume discharged to each surface
impoundment; and
(3) Whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent;
(C) For wastewater applied to the land:
(1) The location of each land application site;
(2) The size of each land application site, in acres;
(3) The average daily volume applied to each land application site,
in gallons per day; and
(4) Whether land application is continuous or intermittent;
(D) For effluent sent to another facility for treatment prior to
discharge:
(1) The means by which the effluent is transported;
(2) The name, mailing address, contact person, and phone number of
the organization transporting the discharge, if the transport is
provided by a party other than the applicant;
(3) The name, mailing address, contact person, phone number, and
NPDES permit number (if any) of the receiving facility; and
(4) The average daily flow rate from this facility into the
receiving facility, in millions of gallons per day; and
[[Page 42464]]
(E) For wastewater disposed of in a manner not included in
paragraphs (j)(1)(viii)(A) through (D) of this section (e.g.,
underground percolation, underground injection):
(1) A description of the disposal method, including the location
and size of each disposal site, if applicable;
(2) The annual average daily volume disposed of by this method, in
gallons per day; and
(3) Whether disposal through this method is continuous or
intermittent;
(2) Additional Information. All applicants with a design flow
greater than or equal to 0.1 mgd must provide the following
information:
(i) Inflow and infiltration. The current average daily volume of
inflow and infiltration, in gallons per day, and steps the facility is
taking to minimize inflow and infiltration;
(ii) Topographic map. A topographic map (or other map if a
topographic map is unavailable) extending at least one mile beyond
property boundaries of the treatment plant, including all unit
processes, and showing:
(A) Treatment plant area and unit processes;
(B) The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater
enters the treatment plant and the pipes or other structures through
which treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant.
Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable;
(C) Each well where fluids from the treatment plant are injected
underground;
(D) Wells, springs, and other surface water bodies listed in public
records or otherwise known to the applicant within \1/4\ mile of the
treatment works' property boundaries;
(E) Sewage sludge management facilities (including on-site
treatment, storage, and disposal sites); and
(F) Location at which waste classified as hazardous under RCRA
enters the treatment plant by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe;
(iii) Process flow diagram or schematic.
(A) A diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant,
including all bypass piping and all backup power sources or redundancy
in the system. This includes a water balance showing all treatment
units, including disinfection, and showing daily average flow rates at
influent and discharge points, and approximate daily flow rates between
treatment units; and
(B) A narrative description of the diagram; and
(iv) Scheduled improvements, schedules of implementation. The
following information regarding scheduled improvements:
(A) The outfall number of each outfall affected;
(B) A narrative description of each required improvement;
(C) Scheduled or actual dates of completion for the following:
(1) Commencement of construction;
(2) Completion of construction;
(3) Commencement of discharge; and
(4) Attainment of operational level;
(D) A description of permits and clearances concerning other
Federal and/or State requirements;
(3) Information on effluent discharges. Each applicant must provide
the following information for each outfall, including bypass points,
through which effluent is discharged, as applicable:
(i) Description of outfall. The following information about each
outfall:
(A) Outfall number;
(B) State, county, and city or town in which outfall is located;
(C) Latitude and longitude, to the nearest second;
(D) Distance from shore and depth below surface;
(E) Average daily flow rate, in million gallons per day;
(F) The following information for each outfall with a seasonal or
periodic discharge:
(1) Number of times per year the discharge occurs;
(2) Duration of each discharge;
(3) Flow of each discharge; and
(4) Months in which discharge occurs; and
(G) Whether the outfall is equipped with a diffuser and the type
(e.g., high-rate) of diffuser used;
(ii) Description of receiving waters. The following information (if
known) for each outfall through which effluent is discharged to waters
of the United States:
(A) Name of receiving water;
(B) Name of watershed/river/stream system and United States Soil
Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code;
(C) Name of State Management/River Basin and United States
Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code; and
(D) Critical flow of receiving stream and total hardness of
receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable);
(iii) Description of treatment. The following information
describing the treatment provided for discharges from each outfall to
waters of the United States:
(A) The highest level of treatment (e.g., primary, equivalent to
secondary, secondary, advanced, other) that is provided for the
discharge for each outfall and:
(1) Design biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 or
CBOD5) removal (percent);
(2) Design suspended solids (SS) removal (percent); and, where
applicable,
(3) Design phosphorus (P) removal (percent);
(4) Design nitrogen (N) removal (percent); and
(5) Any other removals that an advanced treatment system is
designed to achieve.
(B) A description of the type of disinfection used, and whether the
treatment plant dechlorinates (if disinfection is accomplished through
chlorination);
(4) Effluent monitoring for specific parameters.
(i) As provided in paragraphs (j)(4)(ii) through (x) of this
section, all applicants must submit to the Director effluent monitoring
information for samples taken from each outfall through which effluent
is discharged to waters of the United States, except for CSOs. The
Director may allow applicants to submit sampling data for only one
outfall on a case-by-case basis, where the applicant has two or more
outfalls with substantially identical effluent. The Director may also
allow applicants to composite samples from one or more outfalls that
discharge into the same mixing zone;
(ii) All applicants must sample and analyze for the pollutants
listed in Appendix J, Table 1A of this part;
(iii) All applicants with a design flow greater than or equal to
0.1 mgd must sample and analyze for the pollutants listed in Appendix
J, Table 1 of this part. Facilities that do not use chlorine for
disinfection, do not use chlorine elsewhere in the treatment process,
and have no reasonable potential to discharge chlorine in their
effluent may delete chlorine from Table 1;
(iv) The following applicants must sample and analyze for the
pollutants listed in Appendix J, Table 2 of this part, and for any
other pollutants for which the State or EPA have established water
quality standards applicable to the receiving waters:
(A) All POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one
million gallons per day;
(B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required
to develop a pretreatment program;
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director;
(v) The Director should require sampling for additional pollutants,
as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
[[Page 42465]]
(vi) Applicants must provide data from a minimum of three samples
taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application. Samples must be representative of the seasonal variation
in the discharge from each outfall. Existing data may be used, if
available, in lieu of sampling done solely for the purpose of this
application. The Director should require additional samples, as
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.
(vii) All existing data for pollutants specified in paragraphs
(j)(4)(ii) through (v) of this section that is collected within four
and one-half years of the application must be included in the pollutant
data summary submitted by the applicant. If, however, the applicant
samples for a specific pollutant on a monthly or more frequent basis,
it is only necessary, for such pollutant, to summarize all data
collected within one year of the application.
(viii) Applicants must collect samples of effluent and analyze such
samples for pollutants in accordance with analytical methods approved
under 40 CFR part 136 unless an alternative is specified in the
existing NPDES permit. Grab samples must be used for pH, temperature,
cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease, and fecal
coliform. For all other pollutants, 24-hour composite samples must be
used. For a composite sample, only one analysis of the composite of
aliquots is required.
(ix) The effluent monitoring data provided must include at least
the following information for each parameter:
(A) Maximum daily discharge, expressed as concentration or mass,
based upon actual sample values;
(B) Average daily discharge for all samples, expressed as
concentration or mass, and the number of samples used to obtain this
value;
(C) The analytical method used; and
(D) The threshold level (i.e., method detection limit, minimum
level, or other designated method endpoints) for the analytical method
used.
(x) Unless otherwise required by the Director, metals must be
reported as total recoverable.
(5) Effluent monitoring for whole effluent toxicity.
(i) All applicants must provide an identification of any whole
effluent toxicity tests conducted during the four and one-half years
prior to the date of the application on any of the applicant's
discharges or on any receiving water near the discharge.
(ii) As provided in paragraphs (j)(5)(iii)-(ix) of this section,
the following applicants must submit to the Director the results of
valid whole effluent toxicity tests for acute or chronic toxicity for
samples taken from each outfall through which effluent is discharged to
surface waters, except for combined sewer overflows:
(A) All POTWs with design flow rates greater than or equal to one
million gallons per day;
(B) All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required
to develop a pretreatment program;
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the Director, based on
consideration of the following factors:
(1) The variability of the pollutants or pollutant parameters in
the POTW effluent (based on chemical-specific information, the type of
treatment plant, and types of industrial contributors);
(2) The ratio of effluent flow to receiving stream flow;
(3) Existing controls on point or non-point sources, including
total maximum daily load calculations for the receiving stream segment
and the relative contribution of the POTW;
(4) Receiving stream characteristics, including possible or known
water quality impairment, and whether the POTW discharges to a coastal
water, one of the Great Lakes, or a water designated as an outstanding
natural resource water; or
(5) Other considerations (including, but not limited to, the
history of toxic impacts and compliance problems at the POTW) that the
Director determines could cause or contribute to adverse water quality
impacts.
(iii) Where the POTW has two or more outfalls with substantially
identical effluent discharging to the same receiving stream segment,
the Director may allow applicants to submit whole effluent toxicity
data for only one outfall on a case-by-case basis. The Director may
also allow applicants to composite samples from one or more outfalls
that discharge into the same mixing zone.
(iv) Each applicant required to perform whole effluent toxicity
testing pursuant to paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section must provide:
(A) Results of a minimum of four quarterly tests for a year, from
the year preceding the permit application; or
(B) Results from four tests performed at least annually in the four
and one half year period prior to the application, provided the results
show no appreciable toxicity using a safety factor determined by the
permitting authority.
(v) Applicants must conduct tests with multiple species (no less
than two species; e.g., fish, invertebrate, plant), and test for acute
or chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water
dilution. EPA recommends that applicants conduct acute or chronic
testing based on the following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent is
greater than 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone;
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the
effluent is between 100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute testing may be more appropriate at the higher end of this range
(1000:1), and chronic testing may be more appropriate at the lower end
of this range (100:1); and
(C) Chronic testing if the dilution of the effluent is less than
100:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
(vi) Each applicant required to perform whole effluent toxicity
testing pursuant to paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section must provide
the number of chronic or acute whole effluent toxicity tests that have
been conducted since the last permit reissuance.
(vii) Applicants must provide the results using the form provided
by the Director, or test summaries if available and comprehensive, for
each whole effluent toxicity test conducted pursuant to paragraph
(j)(5)(ii) of this section for which such information has not been
reported previously to the Director.
(viii) Whole effluent toxicity testing conducted pursuant to
paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section must be conducted using methods
approved under 40 CFR part 136. West coast facilities in Washington,
Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific Territories are
exempted from 40 CFR part 136 chronic methods and must use alternative
guidance as directed by the permitting authority.
(ix) For whole effluent toxicity data submitted to the Director
within four and one-half years prior to the date of the application,
applicants must provide the dates on which the data were submitted and
a summary of the results.
(x) Each POTW required to perform whole effluent toxicity testing
pursuant to paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section must provide any
information on the cause of toxicity and written details of any
toxicity reduction evaluation conducted, if any whole effluent toxicity
test conducted within the past four and one-half years revealed
toxicity.
(6) Industrial discharges. Applicants must submit the following
information about industrial discharges to the POTW:
(i) Number of significant industrial users (SIUs) and categorical
industrial users (CIUs) discharging to the POTW; and
[[Page 42466]]
(ii) POTWs with one or more SIUs shall provide the following
information for each SIU, as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(t), that
discharges to the POTW:
(A) Name and mailing address;
(B) Description of all industrial processes that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge;
(C) Principal products and raw materials of the SIU that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge;
(D) Average daily volume of wastewater discharged, indicating the
amount attributable to process flow and non-process flow;
(E) Whether the SIU is subject to local limits;
(F) Whether the SIU is subject to categorical standards, and if so,
under which category(ies) and subcategory(ies); and
(G) Whether any problems at the POTW (e.g., upsets, pass through,
interference) have been attributed to the SIU in the past four and one-
half years.
(iii) The information required in paragraphs (j)(6)(i) and (ii) of
this section may be waived by the Director for POTWs with pretreatment
programs if the applicant has submitted either of the following that
contain information substantially identical to that required in
paragraphs (j)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(A) An annual report submitted within one year of the application;
or
(B) A pretreatment program;
(7) Discharges from hazardous waste generators and from waste
cleanup or remediation sites. POTWs receiving Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or RCRA Corrective Action
wastes or wastes generated at another type of cleanup or remediation
site must provide the following information:
(i) If the POTW receives, or has been notified that it will
receive, by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe any wastes that are
regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR part 261, the
applicant must report the following:
(A) The method by which the waste is received (i.e., whether by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe); and
(B) The hazardous waste number and amount received annually of each
hazardous waste;
(ii) If the POTW receives, or has been notified that it will
receive, wastewaters that originate from remedial activities, including
those undertaken pursuant to CERCLA and sections 3004(u) or 3008(h) of
RCRA, the applicant must report the following:
(A) The identity and description of the site(s) or facility(ies) at
which the wastewater originates;
(B) The identities of the wastewater's hazardous constituents, as
listed in Appendix VIII of part 261 of this chapter; if known; and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the wastewater receives or
will receive before entering the POTW;
(iii) Applicants are exempt from the requirements of paragraph
(j)(7)(ii) of this section if they receive no more than fifteen
kilograms per month of hazardous wastes, unless the wastes are acute
hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e).
(8) Combined sewer overflows. Each applicant with combined sewer
systems must provide the following information:
(i) Combined sewer system information. The following information
regarding the combined sewer system:
(A) System map. A map indicating the location of the following:
(1) All CSO discharge points;
(2) Sensitive use areas potentially affected by CSOs (e.g.,
beaches, drinking water supplies, shellfish beds, sensitive aquatic
ecosystems, and outstanding national resource waters); and
(3) Waters supporting threatened and endangered species potentially
affected by CSOs; and
(B) System diagram. A diagram of the combined sewer collection
system that includes the following information:
(1) The location of major sewer trunk lines, both combined and
separate sanitary;
(2) The locations of points where separate sanitary sewers feed
into the combined sewer system;
(3) In-line and off-line storage structures;
(4) The locations of flow-regulating devices; and
(5) The locations of pump stations;
(ii) Information on CSO outfalls. The following information for
each CSO discharge point covered by the permit application:
(A) Description of outfall. The following information on each
outfall:
(1) Outfall number;
(2) State, county, and city or town in which outfall is located;
(3) Latitude and longitude, to the nearest second; and
(4) Distance from shore and depth below surface;
(5) Whether the applicant monitored any of the following in the
past year for this CSO:
(i) Rainfall;
(ii) CSO flow volume;
(iii) CSO pollutant concentrations;
(iv) Receiving water quality;
(v) CSO frequency; and
(6) The number of storm events monitored in the past year;
(B) CSO events. The following information about CSO overflows from
each outfall:
(1) The number of events in the past year;
(2) The average duration per event, if available;
(3) The average volume per CSO event, if available; and
(4) The minimum rainfall that caused a CSO event, if available, in
the last year;
(C) Description of receiving waters. The following information
about receiving waters:
(1) Name of receiving water;
(2) Name of watershed/stream system and the United States Soil
Conservation Service watershed (14-digit) code (if known); and
(3) Name of State Management/River Basin and the United States
Geological Survey hydrologic cataloging unit (8-digit) code (if known);
and
(D) CSO operations. A description of any known water quality
impacts on the receiving water caused by the CSO (e.g., permanent or
intermittent beach closings, permanent or intermittent shellfish bed
closings, fish kills, fish advisories, other recreational loss, or
exceedance of any applicable State water quality standard);
(9) Contractors. All applicants must provide the name, mailing
address, telephone number, and responsibilities of all contractors
responsible for any operational or maintenance aspects of the facility;
and
(10) Signature. All applications must be signed by a certifying
official in compliance with Sec. 122.22.
* * * * *
(q) Sewage sludge management. All TWTDS subject to paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section must provide the information in this
paragraph to the Director, using Form 2S or another application form
approved by the Director. New applicants must submit all information
available at the time of permit application. The information may be
provided by referencing information previously submitted to the
Director. The Director may waive any requirement of this paragraph if
he or she has access to substantially identical information. The
Director may also waive any requirement of this paragraph that is not
of material concern for a specific permit, if approved by the Regional
Administrator. The waiver request to the Regional Administrator must
include the State's justification for the waiver. A Regional
Administrator's disapproval of a State's proposed waiver does not
constitute final Agency action, but does provide notice to the State
and
[[Page 42467]]
permit applicant(s) that EPA may object to any State-issued permit
issued in the absence of the required information.
(1) Facility information. All applicants must submit the following
information:
(i) The name, mailing address, and location of the TWTDS for which
the application is submitted;
(ii) Whether the facility is a Class I Sludge Management Facility;
(iii) The design flow rate (in million gallons per day);
(iv) The total population served; and
(v) The TWTDS's status as Federal, State, private, public, or other
entity;
(2) Applicant information. All applicants must submit the following
information:
(i) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the
applicant; and
(ii) Indication whether the applicant is the owner, operator, or
both;
(3) Permit information. All applicants must submit the facility's
NPDES permit number, if applicable, and a listing of all other Federal,
State, and local permits or construction approvals received or applied
for under any of the following programs:
(i) Hazardous Waste Management program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
(ii) UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
(iii) NPDES program under the Clean Water Act (CWA);
(iv) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program under
the Clean Air Act;
(v) Nonattainment program under the Clean Air Act;
(vi) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) preconstruction approval under the Clean Air Act;
(vii) Dredge or fill permits under section 404 of CWA;
(viii) Other relevant environmental permits, including State or
local permits;
(4) Indian country. All applicants must identify any generation,
treatment, storage, land application, or disposal of sewage sludge that
occurs in Indian country;
(5) Topographic map. All applicants must submit a topographic map
(or other map if a topographic map is unavailable) extending one mile
beyond property boundaries of the facility and showing the following
information:
(i) All sewage sludge management facilities, including on-site
treatment, storage, and disposal sites; and
(ii) Wells, springs, and other surface water bodies that are within
\1/4\ mile of the property boundaries and listed in public records or
otherwise known to the applicant;
(6) Sewage sludge handling. All applicants must submit a line
drawing and/or a narrative description that identifies all sewage
sludge management practices employed during the term of the permit,
including all units used for collecting, dewatering, storing, or
treating sewage sludge, the destination(s) of all liquids and solids
leaving each such unit, and all processes used for pathogen reduction
and vector attraction reduction;
(7) Sewage sludge quality. The applicant must submit sewage sludge
monitoring data for the pollutants for which limits in sewage sludge
have been established in 40 CFR part 503 for the applicant's use or
disposal practices on the date of permit application.
(i) The Director may require sampling for additional pollutants, as
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
(ii) Applicants must provide data from a minimum of three samples
taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application. Samples must be representative of the sewage sludge and
should be taken at least one month apart. Existing data may be used in
lieu of sampling done solely for the purpose of this application;
(iii) Applicants must collect and analyze samples in accordance
with analytical methods approved under SW-846 unless an alternative has
been specified in an existing sewage sludge permit;
(iv) The monitoring data provided must include at least the
following information for each parameter:
(A) Average monthly concentration for all samples (mg/kg dry
weight), based upon actual sample values;
(B) The analytical method used; and
(C) The method detection level.
(8) Preparation of sewage sludge. If the applicant is a ``person
who prepares'' sewage sludge, as defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), the
applicant must provide the following information:
(i) If the applicant's facility generates sewage sludge, the total
dry metric tons per 365-day period generated at the facility;
(ii) If the applicant's facility receives sewage sludge from
another facility, the following information for each facility from
which sewage sludge is received:
(A) The name, mailing address, and location of the other facility;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period received from the
other facility; and
(C) A description of any treatment processes occurring at the other
facility, including blending activities and treatment to reduce
pathogens or vector attraction characteristics;
(iii) If the applicant's facility changes the quality of sewage
sludge through blending, treatment, or other activities, the following
information:
(A) Whether the Class A pathogen reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(a) or the Class B pathogen reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(b) are met, and a description of any treatment processes used to
reduce pathogens in sewage sludge;
(B) Whether any of the vector attraction reduction options of 40
CFR 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8) are met, and a description of any
treatment processes used to reduce vector attraction properties in
sewage sludge; and
(C) A description of any other blending, treatment, or other
activities that change the quality of sewage sludge;
(iv) If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility meets the
ceiling concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in Sec. 503.13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen requirements
in Sec. 503.32(a), and one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8), and if the sewage
sludge is applied to the land, the applicant must provide the total dry
metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge subject to this
paragraph that is applied to the land;
(v) If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility is sold or given
away in a bag or other container for application to the land, and the
sewage sludge is not subject to paragraph (q)(8)(iv) of this section,
the applicant must provide the following information:
(A) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that is sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land; and
(B) A copy of all labels or notices that accompany the sewage
sludge being sold or given away;
(vi) If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility is provided to
another ``person who prepares,'' as defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), and the
sewage sludge is not subject to paragraph (q)(8)(iv) of this section,
the applicant must provide the following information for each facility
receiving the sewage sludge:
(A) The name and mailing address of the receiving facility;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that the applicant provides to the receiving
facility;
(C) A description of any treatment processes occurring at the
receiving facility, including blending activities
[[Page 42468]]
and treatment to reduce pathogens or vector attraction characteristic;
(D) A copy of the notice and necessary information that the
applicant is required to provide the receiving facility under 40 CFR
503.12(g); and
(E) If the receiving facility places sewage sludge in bags or
containers for sale or give-away to application to the land, a copy of
any labels or notices that accompany the sewage sludge;
(9) Land application of bulk sewage sludge. If sewage sludge from
the applicant's facility is applied to the land in bulk form, and is
not subject to paragraphs (q)(8)(iv), (v), or (vi) of this section, the
applicant must provide the following information:
(i) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that is applied to the land;
(ii) If any land application sites are located in States other than
the State where the sewage sludge is prepared, a description of how the
applicant will notify the permitting authority for the State(s) where
the land application sites are located;
(iii) The following information for each land application site that
has been identified at the time of permit application:
(A) The name (if any), and location for the land application site;
(B) The site's latitude and longitude to the nearest second, and
method of determination;
(C) A topographic map (or other map if a topographic map is
unavailable) that shows the site's location;
(D) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the site
owner, if different from the applicant;
(E) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person
who applies sewage sludge to the site, if different from the applicant;
(F) Whether the site is agricultural land, forest, a public contact
site, or a reclamation site, as such site types are defined under 40
CFR 503.11;
(G) The type of vegetation grown on the site, if known, and the
nitrogen requirement for this vegetation;
(H) Whether either of the vector attraction reduction options of 40
CFR 503.33(b)(9) or (b)(10) is met at the site, and a description of
any procedures employed at the time of use to reduce vector attraction
properties in sewage sludge; and
(I) Other information that describes how the site will be managed,
as specified by the permitting authority.
(iv) The following information for each land application site that
has been identified at the time of permit application, if the applicant
intends to apply bulk sewage sludge subject to the cumulative pollutant
loading rates in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) to the site:
(A) Whether the applicant has contacted the permitting authority in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge subject to Sec. 503.13(b)(2)
will be applied, to ascertain whether bulk sewage sludge subject to
Sec. 503.13(b)(2) has been applied to the site on or since July 20,
1993, and if so, the name of the permitting authority and the name and
phone number of a contact person at the permitting authority;
(B) Identification of facilities other than the applicant's
facility that have sent, or are sending, sewage sludge subject to the
cumulative pollutant loading rates in Sec. 503.13(b)(2) to the site
since July 20, 1993, if, based on the inquiry in paragraph (q)(iv)(A),
bulk sewage sludge subject to cumulative pollutant loading rates in
Sec. 503.13(b)(2) has been applied to the site since July 20, 1993;
(v) If not all land application sites have been identified at the
time of permit application, the applicant must submit a land
application plan that, at a minimum:
(A) Describes the geographical area covered by the plan;
(B) Identifies the site selection criteria;
(C) Describes how the site(s) will be managed;
(D) Provides for advance notice to the permit authority of specific
land application sites and reasonable time for the permit authority to
object prior to land application of the sewage sludge; and
(E) Provides for advance public notice of land application sites in
the manner prescribed by State and local law. When State or local law
does not require advance public notice, it must be provided in a manner
reasonably calculated to apprize the general public of the planned land
application.
(10) Surface disposal. If sewage sludge from the applicant's
facility is placed on a surface disposal site, the applicant must
provide the following information:
(i) The total dry metric tons of sewage sludge from the applicant's
facility that is placed on surface disposal sites per 365-day period;
(ii) The following information for each surface disposal site
receiving sewage sludge from the applicant's facility that the
applicant does not own or operate:
(A) The site name or number, contact person, mailing address, and
telephone number for the surface disposal site; and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the applicant's facility per
365-day period placed on the surface disposal site;
(iii) The following information for each active sewage sludge unit
at each surface disposal site that the applicant owns or operates:
(A) The name or number and the location of the active sewage sludge
unit;
(B) The unit's latitude and longitude to the nearest second, and
method of determination;
(C) If not already provided, a topographic map (or other map if a
topographic map is unavailable) that shows the unit's location;
(D) The total dry metric tons placed on the active sewage sludge
unit per 365-day period;
(E) The total dry metric tons placed on the active sewage sludge
unit over the life of the unit;
(F) A description of any liner for the active sewage sludge unit,
including whether it has a maximum permeability of 1 x
10-7 cm/sec;
(G) A description of any leachate collection system for the active
sewage sludge unit, including the method used for leachate disposal,
and any Federal, State, and local permit number(s) for leachate
disposal;
(H) If the active sewage sludge unit is less than 150 meters from
the property line of the surface disposal site, the actual distance
from the unit boundary to the site property line;
(I) The remaining capacity (dry metric tons) for the active sewage
sludge unit;
(J) The date on which the active sewage sludge unit is expected to
close, if such a date has been identified;
(K) The following information for any other facility that sends
sewage sludge to the active sewage sludge unit:
(1) The name, contact person, and mailing address of the facility;
and
(2) Available information regarding the quality of the sewage
sludge received from the facility, including any treatment at the
facility to reduce pathogens or vector attraction characteristics;
(L) Whether any of the vector attraction reduction options of 40
CFR 503.33(b)(9) through (b)(11) is met at the active sewage sludge
unit, and a description of any procedures employed at the time of
disposal to reduce vector attraction properties in sewage sludge;
(M) The following information, as applicable to any ground-water
monitoring occurring at the active sewage sludge unit:
(1) A description of any ground-water monitoring occurring at the
active sewage sludge unit;
(2) Any available ground-water monitoring data, with a description
of
[[Page 42469]]
the well locations and approximate depth to ground water;
(3) A copy of any ground-water monitoring plan that has been
prepared for the active sewage sludge unit;
(4) A copy of any certification that has been obtained from a
qualified ground-water scientist that the aquifer has not been
contaminated; and
(N) If site-specific pollutant limits are being sought for the
sewage sludge placed on this active sewage sludge unit, information to
support such a request;
(11) Incineration. If sewage sludge from the applicant's facility
is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator, the applicant must provide the
following information:
(i) The total dry metric tons of sewage sludge from the applicant's
facility that is fired in sewage sludge incinerators per 365-day
period;
(ii) The following information for each sewage sludge incinerator
firing the applicant's sewage sludge that the applicant does not own or
operate:
(A) The name and/or number, contact person, mailing address, and
telephone number of the sewage sludge incinerator; and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the applicant's facility per
365-day period fired in the sewage sludge incinerator;
(iii) The following information for each sewage sludge incinerator
that the applicant owns or operates:
(A) The name and/or number and the location of the sewage sludge
incinerator;
(B) The incinerator's latitude and longitude to the nearest second,
and method of determination;
(C) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period fired in the
sewage sludge incinerator;
(D) Information, test data, and documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance with the National Emission
Standard for Beryllium in 40 CFR part 61 will be achieved;
(E) Information, test data, and documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance with the National Emission
Standard for Mercury in 40 CFR part 61 will be achieved;
(F) The dispersion factor for the sewage sludge incinerator, as
well as modeling results and supporting documentation;
(G) The control efficiency for parameters regulated in 40 CFR
503.43, as well as performance test results and supporting
documentation;
(H) Information used to calculate the risk specific concentration
(RSC) for chromium, including the results of incinerator stack tests
for hexavalent and total chromium concentrations, if the applicant is
requesting a chromium limit based on a site-specific RSC value;
(I) Whether the applicant monitors total hydrocarbons (THC) or
Carbon Monoxide (CO) in the exit gas for the sewage sludge incinerator;
(J) The type of sewage sludge incinerator;
(K) The maximum performance test combustion temperature, as
obtained during the performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator
to determine pollutant control efficiencies;
(L) The following information on the sewage sludge feed rate used
during the performance test:
(1) Sewage sludge feed rate in dry metric tons per day;
(2) Identification of whether the feed rate submitted is average
use or maximum design; and
(3) A description of how the feed rate was calculated;
(M) The incinerator stack height in meters for each stack,
including identification of whether actual or creditable stack height
was used;
(N) The operating parameters for the sewage sludge incinerator air
pollution control device(s), as obtained during the performance test of
the sewage sludge incinerator to determine pollutant control
efficiencies;
(O) Identification of the monitoring equipment in place, including
(but not limited to) equipment to monitor the following:
(1) Total hydrocarbons or Carbon Monoxide;
(2) Percent oxygen;
(3) Percent moisture; and
(4) Combustion temperature; and
(P) A list of all air pollution control equipment used with this
sewage sludge incinerator;
(12) Disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill. If sewage sludge
from the applicant's facility is sent to a municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF), the applicant must provide the following information
for each MSWLF to which sewage sludge is sent:
(i) The name, contact person, mailing address, location, and all
applicable permit numbers of the MSWLF;
(ii) The total dry metric tons per 365-day period sent from this
facility to the MSWLF;
(iii) A determination of whether the sewage sludge meets applicable
requirements for disposal of sewage sludge in a MSWLF, including the
results of the paint filter liquids test and any additional
requirements that apply on a site-specific basis; and
(iv) Information, if known, indicating whether the MSWLF complies
with criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 258;
(13) Contractors. All applicants must provide the name, mailing
address, telephone number, and responsibilities of all contractors
responsible for any operational or maintenance aspects of the facility
related to sewage sludge generation, treatment, use, or disposal;
(14) Other information. At the request of the permitting authority,
the applicant must provide any other information necessary to determine
the appropriate standards for permitting under 40 CFR part 503, and
must provide any other information necessary to assess the sewage
sludge use and disposal practices, determine whether to issue a permit,
or identify appropriate permit requirements; and
(15) Signature. All applications must be signed by a certifying
official in compliance with Sec. 122.22.
* * * * *
6. Section 122.44 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit
conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Sec. 123.25).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2)(i) Submit a local program when required by and in accordance
with 40 CFR part 403 to assure compliance with pretreatment standards
to the extent applicable under section 307(b). The local program shall
be incorporated into the permit as described in 40 CFR part 403. The
program must require all indirect dischargers to the POTW to comply
with the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 403.
(ii) Provide a written technical evaluation of the need to revise
local limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1), following permit issuance or
reissuance.
* * * * *
7. Part 122 is amended by adding Appendix J to read as follows:
Appendix J to Part 122--NPDES Permit Testing Requirements for
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Sec. 122.21(j))
Table 1A--Effluent Parameters for All POTWS
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD-5 or CBOD-5)
Fecal coliform
Design Flow Rate
pH
Temperature
Total suspended solids
Table 1--Effluent Parameters for All POTWS With a Flow Equal to or
Greater Than 0.1 MGD
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
[[Page 42470]]
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Table 2--Effluent Parameters for Selected POTWS
Hardness
Metals (total recoverable), cyanide and total phenols
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid-extractable compounds
P-chloro-m-creso
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base-neutral compounds
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4,-trichlorobenzene
PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
8. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
9. Section 123.25 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 123.25 Requirements for Permitting.
(a) * * *
(4) Sections 122.21(a), (b), (c)(2), (e) through (k), and (m)
through (p), and (q)--(Application for a permit)
* * * * *
10. Section 123.43 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 123.43 Transmission of information to EPA.
* * * * *
(b) If the State intends to waive any of the permit application
requirements of Sec. 122.21(j) or (q) of this chapter for a specific
applicant, the Director must submit a written request to the Regional
Administrator no less than 210 days prior to permit expiration. This
request must include the State's justification for granting the waiver.
* * * * *
PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING
11. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.;
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.
12. Section 124.8 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(9) as follows:
Sec. 124.8 Fact sheet.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) Justification for waiver of any application requirements under
Sec. 122.21(j) or (q) of this chapter.
PART 501--STATE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS
13. The authority citation for part 501 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
14. Section 501.15 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(4).
Note: The following forms and instructions will not appear in
the Code of Federal Regulations.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 42471]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.000
[[Page 42472]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.001
[[Page 42473]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.002
[[Page 42474]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.003
[[Page 42475]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.004
[[Page 42476]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.005
[[Page 42477]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.006
[[Page 42478]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.007
[[Page 42479]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.008
[[Page 42480]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.009
[[Page 42481]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.010
[[Page 42482]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.011
[[Page 42483]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.012
[[Page 42484]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.013
[[Page 42485]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.014
[[Page 42486]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.015
[[Page 42487]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.016
[[Page 42488]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.017
[[Page 42489]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.018
[[Page 42490]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.019
[[Page 42491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.020
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-C
[[Page 42492]]
Instructions for Completing Form 2A--Application for an NPDES
Permit
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 9.6 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Send comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques to the Director, OP Regulatory
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401
M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control number in
any correspondence. Do not send the completed Form 2A to this address.
Background Information
Each wastewater treatment works that discharges treated effluent to
waters of the United States must apply for a permit for its discharges.
This permitting requirement is part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is implemented by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You can obtain a permit for your
treatment works by filling out and sending in the appropriate form(s)
to your permitting authority. If the State in which your treatment
works is located operates its own NPDES program, then the State is your
permitting authority and you should ask your State for permit
application forms. On the other hand, if EPA operates the NPDES program
in your State, then EPA is the permitting authority, and you must fill
out and send in Form 2A.
These instructions explain how to fill out each question in Form
2A. However, not every applicant will have to fill out every section of
Form 2A. You may determine which parts of Form 2A apply the your
treatment works by reading the Application Overview section on page 1
of Form 2A before filling out the form.
Commonly Asked Questions
What If I Need More Space for My Answer?
If you need more room for your answer than is provided on the form,
attach a separate sheet called ``Additional Information.'' At the top
of the separate sheet, put the name of your plant, your plant's NPDES
permit number, and the number of the outfall that you are writing
about, if applicable. Also, next to your answer, put the question
number (from Form 2A). Provide this information on any drawings or
other papers that you attach to your application as well.
Will the Public Be Able To See the Information I Submit?
Any information you submit on Form 2A will be available to the
public. If you send in more information than is requested on Form 2A
that is considered company-privileged information, you may ask EPA to
keep that extra information confidential. Note that you cannot ask EPA
to keep effluent data confidential. If you want any of the extra
information to be kept confidential, inform EPA of this when you submit
your application. Otherwise, EPA may make the information public
without letting you know in advance. For more information on claims of
confidentiality, see EPA's business confidentiality regulations at
Title 40, Part 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
How Do I Complete the Forms?
Answer every question on Form 2A that applies to your treatment
works. If your answer to a question requires more room than there is on
the form, please attach additional sheets as described above. If a
particular question does not apply to your treatment works, write ``N/
A'' (meaning ``not applicable'') as your answer to that question. If
you need additional guidance on filling out these forms, contact your
EPA Regional Office or your State office.
Which Parts of the Form Apply?
Form 2A is presented in a modular format, consisting of two
packets: the Basic Application Information packet and the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The Basic Application Information
Packet is divided into three parts. All applicants must complete Part A
(Basic Application Information For All Applicants) and Part C
(Certification). Applicants with a design flow greater than or equal to
0.1 mgd must also complete Part B (Additional Application Information
For Applicants With A Design Flow Greater Than Or Equal To 0.1 MGD).
Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental Application
Information packet. Refer to the Application Overview on page 1 of Form
2A to determine which parts of the Supplemental Application Information
you must complete.
Step-by-Step Instructions
The following section provides clarification and additional
information for the questions on Form 2A. Most of the terms used in
Form 2A are defined in the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.2.
Basic Application Information
Part A (Basic Application Information for All Applicants)
A.1. Facility Information
Provide your plant's official or legal name. Do not use a nickname
or short name. Also provide your plant's mailing address, a contact
person at the plant, his/her title, and that person's work telephone
number. The contact person should be someone who has a thorough
understanding of the operation of the treatment works. The permitting
authority may call this person if there are any questions about the
application. Also provide the actual facility address (if different
than the mailing address). The facility location should be a street
address (not a Post Office box number) or other description of the
actual location of the facility. Be sure to provide the city or county
and state in which the facility is located.
A.2. Applicant Information
If someone other than the facility contact person is actually
submitting this application (e.g., a consultant), provide the name and
mailing address of that person's organization. Also provide the name of
a contact person, his/her title, and his/her work telephone number. The
permitting authority may call this person if there are any questions
about the application.
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits
Provide the permit number of each currently effective permit issued
to the treatment works for NPDES, UIC, RCRA,
[[Page 42493]]
PSD, and any other environmental programs. If you have previously filed
an application but have not yet received a permit, give the number of
the application, if any. If you have more than one currently effective
permit under a particular permit program, list each such permit number.
List any other relevant environmental permits under ``Other.''
A.4. Collection System Information
Provide the names of all the cities, towns, and unincorporated
areas served by your plant and enter the number of people served by
your plant at the time you complete this form. Indicate whether each
portion of the collection system is separate or combined storm and
sanitary, if known, and note the ownership status of each portion of
the system (municipal, private, etc.).
A.5. Indian Country
Indian Country means all land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation. Indicate whether your plant is located
in (i.e., within the limits of) Indian Country and whether the water
body into which your plant discharges flows through Indian Country
after it receives your plant discharge.
A.6. Flow
a. Provide your plant's current design flow rate. Treatment works
with a design flow less than 5 mgd must provide the design influent
flow rate to two decimal places. Treatment works that are greater than
or equal to 5 mgd must report this to 1 decimal place. This is because
fluctuations of 0.01 mgd to 0.09 mgd in smaller treatment works
represent a significant percentage of daily flow.
b. Enter the annual average daily flow rate, in million gallons per
day, that your plant actually treated this year and each of the past
two years for days that your plant actually discharges. Each year's
data must be based on a 12-month time period, with the 12th month of
``this year'' occurring no more than three months prior to this
application submittal.
c. Enter the maximum daily flow rate, in million gallons per day
(mgd), that your plant received this year and each of the past two
years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period, with
the 12th month of ``this year'' occurring no more than three months
prior to this application submittal.
A.7. Collection System
Indicate what type of collection system brings wastewater to your
plant. If you check both of the collection systems indicated on the
form, you must also provide an estimate of what percentage (in terms of
miles of pipe) of your entire collection system each type represents.
For example, 80 percent separate sanitary sewers would mean that 80
percent of the actual miles of pipes are separate sanitary sewers (and
20 percent are combined sewers).
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods
a. Note whether the treatment works discharges effluent to waters
of the U.S. If yes, note the number of treated effluent discharge
points, untreated or partially treated effluent discharge points,
combined sewer overflow points, constructed emergency overflows prior
to the headworks, and any other discharge points. Dischargers of
effluent to waters of the U.S. with flow rates greater than or equal to
0.1 mgd must also complete questions B.1 through B.6 and, in some
cases, Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data) of Form 2A. See the
Application Overview on page 1 of Form 2A for more information.
b. A surface impoundment with no point source discharge (to waters
of the U.S.) is a holding pond or basin that is large enough to contain
all wastewaters discharged into it. It has no places where water
overflows from it. It is used for evaporation of water and very little
water seeps into the ground. Your plant must report the location of
each surface impoundment, the annual average volume discharged to each
impoundment, and the frequency of discharge into the surface
impoundment (i.e., is the discharge continuous or intermittent). If
your plant discharges to more than one surface impoundment, use an
additional sheet (or sheets) to give this information for each
impoundment. Attach the additional sheet(s) to the application form.
The information on the location of the surface impoundment(s) may be
referenced on the topographic map prepared under question B.2, if
applicable.
c. Land application is the spraying or spreading of treated
wastewater over an area of land. If your plant applies wastewater to
land, you must list the site location, the size of the site (in acres),
the annual average daily volume applied to the site, and the frequency
of application (i.e., is the application continuous or intermittent).
If your plant applies wastewater to more than one site, provide the
information for each site on a separate sheet (or sheets). Attach the
additional sheet(s) to your application form. The information on the
location of the land application site may be referenced on the
topographic map prepared under question B.2, if applicable.
d. If your plant discharges treated or untreated wastewater to
another treatment works (including a municipal waste transport or
collection system), provide the information requested in question
A.8.d. If your plant sends wastewater to more than one treatment works,
provide this information for each treatment works on an additional
sheet (or sheets). Attach the additional sheet(s) to your application
form. Describe how the wastewater is transported to the other treatment
works. Also provide the name and mailing address of the company that
transports your plant's wastewater to this treatment works as well as
the name, phone number, and title of the contact person at the
transportation company. Also provide the name and mailing address of
each treatment works that receives wastewater from your plant as well
as the name, phone number, and title of the contact person at the
treatment works that receives your plant's wastewater and the NPDES
permit number for the treatment works, if known. Indicate the average
daily flow, in million gallons per day, that is sent from your plant to
the other treatment works.
e. If your plant disposes of its wastewater in some way that was
not described by A.8.a through A.8.d above, briefly describe how your
plant discharges or disposes of its wastewater. Also give the annual
daily volumes disposed of this way and indicate whether the discharge
is continuous or intermittent. Other ways to discharge or dispose
include underground percolation and well injection.
Wastewater Discharges. If this treatment works does not discharge
treated wastewater to waters of the United States, do not complete
questions A.9 through A.11. Instead, go to Part C (Certification). Note
that you may also be required to complete portions of the Supplemental
Application Information packet.
Answer questions A.9 through A.12 once for each outfall (including
bypass points) through which your treatment works discharges effluent
to surface waters of the United States. Do not include information
about combined sewer overflow discharge points. Surface water means
creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. If your
treatment works has more than one
[[Page 42494]]
outfall, copy and complete questions A.9 through A.12 once for each
outfall.
A.9. Description of Outfall
a-e. Give the outfall number and its location. For location,
provide the city or town (if applicable), zip code, county, state, and
latitude and longitude to the nearest second. If this outfall is a
subsurface discharge (e.g., into an estuary, lake, or ocean), indicate
how far the outfall is from shore and how far below the water's surface
it is. Give these distances in feet at the lowest point of low tide.
Also provide the average daily flow rate in million gallons per day.
f. Mark whether this outfall is a periodic or intermittent
discharge. A ``periodic discharge'' is one that happens regularly (for
example, monthly or seasonally), but is not continuous all year. An
``intermittent discharge'' is one that happens sometimes, but not
regularly. Discharges from holding ponds, lagoons, etc., may be
included as periodic or intermittent. Give the number of times per year
a discharge occurs from this outfall. Also tell how long each discharge
lasts and how much water is discharged, in million gallons per day.
List each month when discharge happens. If you do not have records of
exact months in which such discharges occurred, provide an estimate
based on the best available information.
g. Indicate whether the outfall is equipped with a diffuser.
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Give the name of the surface water to which this outfall
discharges and the waterbodies to which the discharge will ultimately
flow. For example, ``Control Ditch A, then into Stream B, then into
River C, and finally into River D in River Basin E.''
b. If known, provide the name of the watershed in which the
receiving water (identified in question A.10.a) is located. If known,
also provide the 14-digit watershed code assigned to this watershed by
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
c. If known, provide the name of the State Management/River Basin
into which this outfall discharges. If known, also provide the 8-digit
hydrologic cataloging unit code assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey.
d. If known and if the water body is a river or stream, provide the
acute and chronic critical low flow in cubic feet per second (cfs). If
you are unsure of these numbers, the U.S. Geological Survey may be able
to give them to you or you may be able to get these numbers from prior
studies.
e. Give the total hardness of the receiving stream at critical low
flow, in milligrams per liter of CaCO3, if applicable.
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. Indicate the levels of treatment that your plant provides for
the discharge from this outfall.
b. Give the design removal rates, in percent, for biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) or carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD5), suspended solids (SS), phosphorus (P),
nitrogen (N), and any other parameter requested by the permitting
authority.
c. Describe the type of disinfection your plant uses (for example,
chlorination, ozonation, ultraviolet, etc.) and any seasonal variation
in disinfection technique that may occur. If your plant uses
chlorination, indicate whether it also dechlorinates.
d. Note whether the facility has post aeration.
A.12. Effluent Testing Information
All applicants that discharge effluent to waters of the United
States must provide effluent testing data for each outfall. Refer to
the following table to determine which effluent testing information
questions you must complete and to determine the number of pollutant
scans on which to base your data. See the Application Overview on page
1 of Form 2A for more information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number
Treatment works characteristics Form 2A requirements of scans (see
Appendix A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design flow rate less than 1 mgd,
and Question A.12 3
Not required to have (or does not have) a
pretreatment program
Design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd, or Question A.12 and Part D of Supplemental 3
Required to have a pretreatment program (or has one Application Information Packet
in place), or
Otherwise required by the permitting authority to
provide the data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete question A.12 once for each outfall through which effluent
is discharged to waters of the United States. Indicate on each page the
outfall number (as assigned in question A.9) for which the data are
provided. Do not include information about combined sewer overflow
discharge points in question A.12. For specific instructions on
completing the pollutant tables in question A.12, refer to Appendix A
of these instructions.
Part B (Additional Application Information for Applicants With a Design
Flow Greater Than Equal to 0.1 MGD)
All applicants with a design flow rate greater than or equal to 0.1
mgd must answer questions B.1 through B.6.
B.1. Inflow and Infiltration
Estimate the average daily flow rate of inflow and infiltration in
gallons per day and steps the facility is taking to minimize inflow and
infiltration.
B.2. Topographic Map
Provide a topographic map (or other map if a topographic map is
unavailable) extending at least one mile beyond property boundaries of
the treatment plant, including all unit processes. In addition, the map
must show the following:
a. Treatment plant area and unit processes;
b. Major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters
the treatment plant and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include
outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable;
c. Each well where fluids from the treatment plant is injected
underground;
d. Wells, springs, and other surface waterbodies listed in public
records or otherwise known to the applicant within one-quarter mile of
the treatment works' property boundary;
e. Sewage sludge management facilities (including on-site
treatment, storage, and disposal sites); and
f. Location at which waste classified as hazardous under RCRA
enters the treatment plant by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
[[Page 42495]]
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic
Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant,
including all bypass piping and all backup power sources or redundancy
in the system. Include a water balance showing all treatment units,
including disinfection, and showing daily average flow rates at
influent and discharge points, and approximate daily flow rates between
treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
B.4. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s)
If a contractor carries out any operational or maintenance aspects
associated with wastewater treatment or effluent quality at this
facility, provide the name, mailing address, and telephone number of
each such contractor. Also provide a description of the
responsibilities of the contractor. Attach additional pages if
necessary.
B.5. Scheduled Improvements and Schedules of Implementation
Provide information on any improvements to your treatment works
that you are currently planning. Include only those improvements that
will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design
capacity of your treatment works (such improvements may include
regionalization of treatment works). Also list the schedule for when
these improvements will be started and finished. If your treatment
works has more than one improvement planned, use a separate sheet of
paper to provide information for each one.
a. List each outfall number that is covered by the implementation
schedule. The outfall numbers you use must be the same as the ones
provided under question A.9.
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation
schedules are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
c. Provide a brief description of the improvements to be made for
the outfalls listed in question B.5.a, including new maximum daily
inflow rate, if applicable.
d. Provide the information requested for each planned improvement.
Supply dates for the following stages of any compliance schedule. For
improvements that are planned independently of local, State, or Federal
agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as applicable.
If a step has already been finished, give the date when that step was
completed.
``Begin Construction'' means the date you plan to start
construction.
``End Construction'' means the date you expect to finish
construction.
``Begin Discharge'' means the date that you expect a
discharge will start.
``Attain Operational Level'' means the date that you
expect the effluent level will meet your plant's implementation
schedule conditions.
e. Note whether your treatment works has received appropriate
permits or clearances that are required by other Federal or State
requirements. If you have received such permits, describe them.
Part C (Certification)
Before completing the Certification statement, review the
Application Overview section on the cover page of Form 2A to make sure
that you have completed all applicable sections of Form 2A, including
any parts of the Supplemental Application Information packet.
All permit applications must be signed and certified. Also indicate
in the boxes provided which sections of Form 2A you are submitting with
this application.
An application submitted by a municipality, State, Federal, or
other public agency must be signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a
Federal agency includes: (1) The chief executive officer of the agency,
or (2) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A responsible corporate officer means:
(1) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president in charge of a
principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy- or decision-making functions; or (2) the manager of
manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than
250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign
documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a partnership or sole proprietorship
must be signed by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
Supplemental Application Information Packet
EPA has developed Form 2A in a modular format, consisting of two
packets: the Basic Application Information packet and the Supplemental
Application Information packet. As directed by the Application Overview
section on page 1 of Form 2A, certain applicants will need to complete
one or more parts of the Supplemental Application Information packet in
addition to some or all of the Basic Application Information packet.
Refer to the Application Overview section to determine which part(s) of
Form 2A you must complete.
The Supplemental Application Information packet is divided into the
following parts:
Part D Expanded Effluent Testing Data
Part E Toxicity Testing Data
Part F Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes
Part G Combined Sewer Systems
Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the
United States and meets one or more of the following criteria must
complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd;
Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in
place); or
Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to
provide the information
Refer to the following table to determine which effluent testing
information questions you must complete and to determine the number of
pollutant scans on which to base your data.
[[Page 42496]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number
Treatment works characteristics Form 2A requirements of scans (see
Appendix A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design flow rate less than 1 mgd but greater than Question B.6 3
0.1 mgd, and
Not required to have (or does not have) a
pretreatment program
Design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd, or Question B.6 and Part D of Supplemental 3
Required to have a pretreatment program (or has one Application Information Packet
in place), or
Otherwise required by the permitting authority to
provide the data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete Part D once for each outfall through which effluent is
discharged to waters of the United States. Indicate on each page the
outfall number (as assigned in question A.9 of the Basic Application
Information packet) for which the data are provided. Using the blank
rows provided on the form, submit any data the facility may have for
pollutants not specifically listed in Part D. Note that the permitting
authority may require additional testing on a case-by-case basis.
For specific instructions on completing the pollutant tables in
Part D, refer to Appendix A of these instructions.
Part E (Toxicity Testing Data)
Treatment works meeting one or more of the following criteria must
complete Part E (Toxicity Testing Data):
Treatment works with a design flow rate greater than or
equal to one mgd; or
Treatment works with an approved pretreatment program (as
well as those required to have one under 40 CFR Part 403); or
Treatment works otherwise required by the permitting
authority to submit the results of whole effluent toxicity testing.
Applicants completing Part E must submit the results from any whole
effluent toxicity test conducted during the past four and one-half
years that have not been reported or submitted to the permitting
authority for each outfall discharging effluent to the waters of the
United States. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows
in this section. If the applicant conducted a whole effluent toxicity
test during the past four and one-half years that revealed toxicity,
then provide any information available on the cause of the toxicity or
any results of a toxicity reduction evaluation, if one was conducted.
Test results provided in Part E must be based on multiple species
being tested quarterly for a minimum of one year. For multiple species,
EPA requires a minimum of two species (e.g., vertebrates and
invertebrates). The permitting authority may require the applicant to
include other species (e.g., plants) as well. Applicants must provide
these tests for either acute or chronic toxicity depending on the range
of the receiving water dilution. EPA recommends that applicants conduct
acute or chronic toxicity testing based on the following dilutions:
Acute toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent is
greater than 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute or chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the
effluent is between 100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
Acute testing may be more appropriate at the higher end of this range
(1000:1), and chronic testing may be more appropriate at the lower end
of this range (100:1).
Chronic toxicity testing if the dilution of the effluent
is less than 100:1 at the edge of the mixing zone.
All data provided in Part E must be based on tests performed within
four and one-half years prior to completing this application. The tests
must have been conducted since the last NPDES permit issuance or permit
modification under 40 CFR 122.62(a). In addition, applicants only need
to submit data that have not previously been submitted to the
permitting authority. Thus, if test data have already been submitted
(within the last four and one-half years) in accordance with an issued
NPDES permit, the treatment works may note the dates the tests were
submitted and need not fill out the information requested in question
E.2 for that test.
Additional copies of Part E may be used in submitting the required
information. A permittee having no significant toxicity in the effluent
over the past year and who has submitted all toxicity test results
through the end of the calendar quarter preceding the time of permit
application would need to supply no additional toxicity testing data as
part of this application. Instead, the applicant should complete
question E.4, which requests a summary of bioassay test information
already submitted. (See below for more detailed instructions on
completing question E.4)
Where test data are requested to be reported, the treatment works
has the option of reporting the requested data on Form 2A or on reports
supplied by the laboratories conducting the testing, provided the data
requested are complete and presented in a logical fashion. The
permitting authority reserves the right to request that the data be
reported on Form 2A.
E.1. Required Tests
Provide the total number of chronic and acute whole effluent
toxicity tests conducted in the past four and one-half years. A
``chronic'' toxicity test continues for a relatively long period of
time, often one-tenth the life span of the organism or more. An
``acute'' toxicity test is one in which the effect is observed in 96
hours or less.
E.2. Individual Test Data
Complete E.2 for each test conducted in the last four and one-half
years for which data has not been submitted. Use the columns provided
on the form for each test and specify the test number at the top of
each column. Use additional copies of question E.2 if more than three
tests are being reported. The parameters listed on the form are based
on EPA-recommended test methods. Permittees may be required by the
permitting authority to submit additional test parameter data for the
purposes of quality assurance.
If the treatment works is conducting whole effluent toxicity tests
and reporting its results in accordance with a NPDES permit
requirement, then the treatment works may note the dates the tests were
submitted and need not fill out the information requested in question
E.2. for those tests (unless otherwise required by the permitting
authority).
a. Provide the information requested on the form for each test
reported. Under ``Test species & test method number,'' provide the
scientific name of the organism used in the test and the test method
number. The ``Outfall number'' reported must correlate to the outfall
numbers listed in question A.9 of the Basic Application Information
packet.
b. Provide the source of the toxicity test methods followed. In
conducting the tests, the treatment works must use methods approved in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
[[Page 42497]]
Note: Approved methods are currently under development.
c. Indicate whether 24-hour composite or grab samples were used for
each test. For multiple grab samples, provide the number of grab
samples used. Refer to Appendix A of the instructions for a definition
of composite and grab samples.
d. Indicate whether the sample was taken before or after
disinfection and/or after dechlorination.
e. Provide a description of the point in the treatment process at
which the sample was collected.
f. Indicate whether the test was intended to assess chronic or
acute toxicity.
g. Indicate which type of test was performed. A ``static'' test is
a test performed with a single constant volume of water. In a ``static-
renewal'' test, the volume of water is renewed at discrete intervals.
In a ``flow-through'' test, the volume of water is renewed
continuously.
h. Indicate whether laboratory water or the receiving water of the
tested outfall was used as the source of dilution water. If laboratory
water was used, provide the type of water used.
i. Indicate whether fresh or salt water was used as the dilution
water. For salt water, specify whether the salt water was natural or
artificial (specify the type of artificial water used).
j. For each concentration in the test series, provide the
percentage of effluent used.
k. Provide the minimum and maximum parameters measured during the
test for pH, salinity, temperature, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen.
l. Provide the results of each test performed. For acute toxicity
tests, provide the percent survival of the test species in 100 percent
effluent. Also provide the LC50 (Lethal Concentration to 50
percent) of the test. ``LC50'' is the effluent (or toxicant)
concentration estimated to be lethal to 50 percent of the test
organisms during a specific period. Provide the 95% confidence
interval, control percent survival, and any other test results
requested by the permitting authority in the space provided. For
chronic toxicity tests, provide data at the most sensitive endpoint.
While this is generally expressed as a ``NOEC'' (No Observed Effect
Concentration), it may be expressed as an ``Inhibition Concentration''
(e.g., ``IC25''--Inhibition Concentration to 25 percent).
The NOEC is the highest measured concentration of an effluent (or a
toxicant) at which no significant adverse effects are observed on the
test organisms at a specific time of observation. The IC25
is the effluent (or toxicant) concentration estimated to cause a 25
percent reduction in reproduction, fecundity, growth, or other non-
quantal biological measurements. Provide the control percent survival.
Indicate any other test results in the space provided.
m. Note whether reference toxicant data is available and indicate
whether the reference toxicant test was within acceptable bounds.
Provide the date on which the reference toxicant test was run. Also
provide any other quality control/quality assurance information that
may be requested by the permitting authority.
E.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) is a site-specific study
conducted in a stepwise process designed to identify the causative
agents of effluent toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity
control options, and then confirm the reduction in effluent toxicity.
If the treatment works is conducting a TRE as part of a NPDES permit
requirement or enforcement order, then you only need to provide the
date of the last progress report concerning the TRE in the area
reserved for details of the TRE.
E.4. Summary of Submitted Biomonitoring Test Information
As stated above, applicants that have already submitted the results
of biomonitoring test information over the past four and one-half years
do not need to resubmit this data with Form 2A. Instead, indicate in
question E.4 the date you submitted each report and provide a summary
of the test results for each report. Include in this summary the
following information: the outfall number and collection dates of the
samples tested, dates of testing, toxicity testing method(s) used, and
a summary of the results from the test (e.g, 100% survival in 40%
effluent).
Part F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes)
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant
industrial users (SIUs) or facilities that receive RCRA, CERCLA, or
other remedial wastes must complete Part F.
A ``categorical industrial user'' is an industrial user that is
subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40
CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, which are technology-based standards
developed by EPA setting industry-specific effluent limits. (A list of
Industrial Categories subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards is
included in Appendix B.)
A ``significant industrial user'' is defined in 40 CFR 403.3(t) as
an industrial user that:
Is subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40
CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N; and
Any other industrial user that: discharges an average of
25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment
works (excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater); contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent
or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the
treatment works; or is designated as such by the Control Authority as
defined in 40 CFR 403.12(a) on the basis that the industrial user has a
reasonable potential for adversely affecting the treatment works
operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement (in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)).
An ``industrial user'' means any industrial or commercial entity
that discharges wastewater that is not domestic wastewater. Domestic
wastewater includes wastewater from connections to houses, hotels, non-
industrial office buildings, institutions, or sanitary waste from
industrial facilities. The number of ``industrial users'' is the total
number of industrial and commercial users that discharge to the
treatment works.
For the purposes of completing the application form, please provide
information on non-categorical SIUs and categorical industrial users
separately.
F.1. Pretreatment Program
Indicate whether the treatment works has an approved pretreatment
program. An ``approved pretreatment program'' is a program administered
by a treatment works that meets the criteria established in 40 CFR
403.8 and 403.9 and that has been approved by a Regional Administer or
State Director.
Note that if this treatment works has or is required to have a
pretreatment program, you must also complete Parts D and E of the
Supplemental Application Information packet.
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical
Industrial Users (CIUs)
Provide the number of SIUs and the number of CIUs that discharge to
the treatment works.
Significant Industrial User (SIU) Information. All treatment works
that receive discharges from SIUs must complete questions F.3 through
F.8. If your treatment works receives wastewater from more than one
SIU,
[[Page 42498]]
complete questions F.3 through F.8 once for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information
Provide the name and mailing address of each SIU. Submit additional
pages as necessary.
F.4. Industrial Processes
Describe the actual process(es) (rather than simply listing them)
at the SIU that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. For
example, in describing a metal finishing operation, include such
information as how the product is cleaned prior to finishing, what type
of plating baths are in operation (e.g., nickel, chromium), how paint
is applied, and how the product is polished. Attach additional sheets
if necessary.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s)
List principal products that the SIU generates and the raw
materials used to manufacture the products.
F.6. Flow Rate
``Process wastewater'' means any water that, during manufacturing
or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, byproduct, or waste product. Indicate the average daily
volume, in gallons per day, of process wastewater and non-process
wastewater that the SIU discharges into the collection system. Specify
whether the discharges are continuous or intermittent.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards
Indicate whether the SIU is subject to local limits and categorical
pretreatment standards. ``Local limits'' are enforceable local
requirements developed by treatment works to address Federal standards
as well as state and local regulations. ``Categorical pretreatment
standards'' are national technology-based standards developed by EPA,
setting industry-specific effluent limits. These standards are
implemented by 40 CFR 403.6. If the treatment works is subject to
categorical pretreatment standards, indicate the category and
subcategory.
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharged by
the SIU
Provide information concerning any problems the treatment works has
experienced that are attributable to discharges from the SIUs. Problems
may include upsets or interference at the plant, corrosion in the
collection system, or other similar events in the past three years.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Received by Truck, Rail or Dedicated Pipeline.
As defined in Section 1004(5) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), ``Hazardous waste'' means ``a solid waste, or combination
of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may:
Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness; or
Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported,
or disposed of, or otherwise managed.''
Those solid wastes that are considered hazardous are listed under
40 CFR Part 261. Treatment works that accept hazardous wastes by truck,
rail, or dedicated pipeline (a pipeline that is used to carry hazardous
waste directly to a treatment works without prior mixing with domestic
sewage) within the property boundary of the treatment works are
considered to be hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) and, as such, are subject to regulations under RCRA.
Under RCRA, mixtures of domestic sewage and other wastes that commingle
in the treatment works collection system prior to reaching the property
boundary, including those wastes that otherwise would be considered
hazardous, are excluded from regulation under the domestic sewage
exclusion. Hazardous wastes that are delivered directly to the
treatment works by truck, rail, or dedicated pipeline do not fall
within the exclusion. Hazardous wastes received by these routes may
only be accepted by treatment works if the treatment works complies
with applicable RCRA requirements for TSDFs.
Applicants completing questions F.9 through F.11 should have
indicated all points at which RCRA hazardous waste enters the treatment
works by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe in the map provided in question
B.2 of the Basic Application Information packet, if applicable.
F.9. RCRA Waste
Indicate whether the treatment works currently receives or has
received RCRA waste by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe in the past three
years.
F.10. Waste Transport
Indicate the method by which RCRA waste is received at the
treatment works.
F.11. Waste Description
Provide the EPA hazardous waste numbers, which are located in 40
CFR Part 261, Subparts C & D, and the amount (in volume or mass)
received.
CERCLA (Superfund) Wastewater and RCRA Remediation/ Corrective
Action Wastewater. Substances that are regulated under Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are
described and listed in 40 CFR Part 302. Questions F.12 through F.15
apply to the type, origin, and treatment of CERCLA wastes currently (or
expected to be) discharged to the treatment works.
F.12. CERCLA Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works currently receives waste from
a CERCLA (Superfund) site or plans to accept waste from a CERCLA site
in the next five years. If it does, provide the information requested
in F.13 through F.15 once for each site.
F.13. Waste Origin
Provide information about the CERCLA site that is discharging waste
to the treatment works. Information must include a description of the
type of facility and an EPA identification number if one exists.
F.14. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are or will be discharged by
the CERCLA site and the volume and concentration of such pollutants.
F.15. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the treatment used (if any) by the
CERCLA site to treat the waste prior to discharging it to the treatment
works. The information should include a description of the treatment
technology, information on the frequency of the discharge (continuous
or intermittent) and any data concerning removal efficiency.
Part G. (Combined Sewer Systems)
A combined sewer system collects a mixture of both sanitary
wastewater and storm water runoff.
G.1. System Map
Indicate on a system map all CSO discharge points. For each such
point, indicate any sensitive use areas and any waters supporting
threatened or endangered species that are potentially affected by CSOs.
Sensitive use areas include beaches, drinking water supplies, shellfish
beds, sensitive aquatic ecosystems, and outstanding natural resource
waters.
[[Page 42499]]
Applicants may provide the information requested in question G.1 on
the map submitted in response to question B.2 in the Basic Application
Information packet, if applicable.
All maps should be either on paper or other material appropriate
for reproduction. If possible, all sheets should be approximately
letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. As few sheets
should be used as necessary to show clearly what is involved. All
discharge points should be identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant's name, NPDES permit number,
location (city, county, or town), date of drawing, and designation of
the number of sheets of each diagram as ``page ____ of ____.''
G.2. System Diagram
Diagram the location of combined and separate sanitary major sewer
trunk lines and indicate any connections where separate sanitary sewers
feed into the combined sewer system. Clearly indicate the location of
all in-line and off-line storage structures, flow regulating devices,
and pump stations.
The drawing should be either on paper or other material appropriate
for reproduction. If possible, all sheets should be approximately
letter size with margins suitable for filing and binding. As few sheets
should be used as necessary to show clearly what is involved. All
discharge points should be identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant's name, NPDES permit number,
location (city, county, or town), date of drawing, and designation of
the number of sheets of each diagram as ``page ____ of ____''.
CSO Outfalls. Fill out a copy of questions G.3 through G.6 once for
each CSO discharge point. Attach additional pages as necessary.
G.3. Description of Outfall
a-f. Provide the outfall number and location (including city or
town if applicable, state, county, and latitude and longitude to the
nearest second). For subsurface discharges (e.g., discharges to lakes,
estuaries, and oceans), provide the distance (in feet) of the discharge
point from the shore and the depth (in feet) of the discharge point
below the surface of the discharge point. Provide these distances at
the lowest point of low tide. Indicate whether rainfall, CSO flow
volume, CSO pollutant concentrations, receiving water quality, or CSO
frequency were monitored during the past 12 months. In addition,
provide the number of storm events monitored during the past 12 months.
G.4. CSO Events
a. Provide the number of CSO events that have occurred in the past
12 months. Indicate whether this is an actual or approximate number.
b. Provide the average duration (in hours) per CSO event. Indicate
whether this is an actual or approximate value.
c. Provide the average volume (in million gallons) of discharge per
CSO incidents over the past 12 months. Indicate whether this is an
actual or approximate number.
d. Provide the minimum amount of rainfall that caused a CSO
incident in the past 12 months.
G.5. Description of Receiving Waters
a. List the name(s) of immediate receiving waters starting at the
CSO discharge point and moving downstream. For example, ``Control Ditch
A, thence to Stream B, thence to River C, and thence to River D in the
River Basin E.''
b. Provide the name of the watershed/river/stream system in which
the receiving water (identified in question A.10.a) is located. If
known, also provide the 14-digit watershed code assigned to this
watershed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
c. Provide the name of the State Management/River Basin into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey.
G.6. CSO Operations
Provide a description of any known water quality impacts on the
receiving water caused by CSOs from this discharge point. Water quality
impacts include, but are not limited to, permanent or intermittent
beach closings, permanent or intermittent shell fish bed closings, fish
kills, fish advisories, other recreational loss, or violation of any
applicable State water quality standard.
Appendix A--Guidance for Completing the Effluent Testing Information;
All Treatment Works
All applicants must provide data for each of the pollutants in
question A.12 of the Basic Application Information packet. Some
applicants must also provide data for the pollutants in question B.6
of the Basic Application Information packet and Part D of the
Supplemental Application Information packet. All applicants
submitting effluent testing data must base this data on a minimum of
three pollutant scans. All samples analyzed must be representative
of the discharge from the sampled outfall.
If you have existing data that fulfills the requirements
described below, you may use that data in lieu of conducting
additional sampling. If you measure more than the required number of
daily values for a pollutant and those values are representative of
your wastestream, you must include them in the data you report. In
addition, use the blank rows provided on the form to provide any
existing sampling data that your facility may have for pollutants
not listed in the appropriate sections. All data provided in the
application must be based on samples taken within three years prior
to the time of this permit application.
Sampling data must be representative of the treatment works'
discharge and take into consideration seasonal variations. At least
two of the samples used to complete the effluent testing information
questions must have been taken no fewer than 4 months and no more
than 8 months apart. For example, one sample may be taken in April
and another in October to meet this requirement. Applicants unable
to meet this time requirement due to periodic, discontinuous, or
seasonal discharges can obtain alternative guidance on this
requirement from their permitting authority.
The collection of samples for the reported analyses should be
supervised by a person experienced in performing wastewater
sampling. Specific requirements contained in the applicable
analytical methods should be followed for sample containers, sample
preservation, holding times, and collection of duplicate samples.
Samples should be taken at a time representative of normal
operation. To the extent feasible, all processes that contribute to
wastewater should be in operation and the treatment system should be
operating properly with no system upsets. Samples should be
collected from the center of the flow channel (where turbulence is
at a maximum), at a location specified in the current NPDES permit,
or at any location adequate for the collection of a representative
sample.
A minimum of four grab samples must be collected for pH,
temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and
grease, fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci (applicants need
only provide data on either fecal coliform or E. coli and
enterococci). For all other pollutants, 24-hour composite samples
must be collected. However, a minimum of one grab sample, instead of
a 24-hour composite, may be taken for effluent from holding ponds or
other impoundments that have a retention period greater than 24
hours.
Grab and composite samples are defined as follows:
Grab sample: an individual sample of at least 100
milliliters collected randomly for a period not exceeding 15
minutes.
Composite sample: a sample derived from two or more
discrete samples collected at equal time intervals or collected
proportional to the flow rate over the compositing period. The
composite collection method may vary depending on pollutant
characteristics or discharge flow characteristics.
The permitting authority may allow or establish appropriate
site-specific sampling procedures or requirements, including
sampling locations, the season in which sampling takes place, the
duration between
[[Page 42500]]
sampling events, and protocols for collecting samples under 40 CFR
Part 136. Contact EPA or the State permitting authority for detailed
guidance on sampling techniques and for answers to specific
questions. The following instructions explain how to complete each
of the columns in the pollutant tables in the effluent testing
information sections of Form 2A.
Maximum Daily Discharge. For composite samples, the daily
discharge is the average pollutant concentration and total mass
found in a composite sample taken over a 24-hour period. For grab
samples, the daily discharge is the arithmetic or flow-weighted
total mass or average pollutant concentration found in a series of
at least four grab samples taken during the operating hours of the
treatment works during a 24-hour period.
To determine the maximum daily discharge values, compare the
daily discharge values from each of the sample events. Report the
highest total mass and highest concentration level from these
samples.
``Concentration'' is the amount of pollutant that is
present in a sample with respect to the size of the sample. The
daily discharge concentration is the average concentration of the
pollutant throughout the 24-hour period.
``Mass'' is calculated as the total mass of the
pollutant discharged over the 24-hour period.
All data must be reported as both concentration and
mass (where appropriate). Use the following abbreviations in the
columns headed ``Units.''
ppm--parts per million
gpd--gallons per day
mgd--million gallons per day
su--standard units
mg/l--milligrams per liter
ppb--parts per billion
ug/l--micrograms per liter
lbs--pounds
ton--tons (English tons)
mg--milligrams
g--grams
kg--kilograms
T--tonnes (metric tons)
Average Daily Discharge. The average daily discharge is
determined by calculating the arithmetic mean daily pollutant
concentration and the arithmetic mean daily total mass of the
pollutant from each of the sample events within the three years
prior to this permit application. Report the concentration, mass,
and units used under the Average Daily Discharge column, along with
the number of samples on which the average is based. Use the unit
abbreviations shown above in ``Maximum Daily Discharge.''
If data requested in Form 2A have been reported on the treatment
works' Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), you may compile such
data and report it under the maximum daily discharge and the average
daily discharge columns of the form.
Analytical Method. All information reported must be based on
data collected through analyses conducted using 40 CFR Part 136
methods. Applicants should use methods that enable pollutants to be
detected at levels adequate to meet water quality-based standards.
Where no approved method can detect a pollutant at the water
quality-based standards level, the most sensitive approved method
should be used. If the applicant believes that an alternative method
should be used (e.g., due to matrix interference), the applicant
should obtain prior approval from the permitting authority. If an
alternative method is specified in the existing permit, the
applicant should use that method unless otherwise directed by the
permitting authority. Where no approved analytical method exists, an
applicant may use a suitable method but must provide a description
of the method. For the purposes of the application, ``suitable
method'' means a method that is sufficiently sensitive to measure as
close to the water quality-based standard as possible.
Indicate the method used for each pollutant in the ``Analytical
Method'' column of the pollutant tables. If a method has not been
approved for a pollutant for which you are providing data, you may
use a suitable method to measure the concentration of the pollutant
in the discharge, and provide a detailed description of the method
used or a reference to the published method. The description must
include the sample holding time, preservation techniques, and the
quality control measures used. In such cases, indicate the method
used and attach to the application a narrative description of the
method used.
Reporting Levels. The applicant should provide the method
detection limit (MDL), minimum level (ML), or other designated
method endpoint reflecting the precision of the analytical method
used.
All analytical results must be reported using the actual numeric
values determined by the analysis. In other words, even where
analytical results are below the detection or quantitation level of
the method used, the actual data should be reported, rather than
reporting ``non-detect'' (``ND'') or ``zero'' (``0''). Because the
endpoint of the method has also been reported along with the test
results, the permitting authority will be able to determine if the
data are in the ``non-detect'' or ``below quantitation'' range.
For any dilutions made and any problems encountered in the
analysis, the applicant should attach an explanation and any
supporting documentation with the application. For GC/MS, report all
results found to be present by spectral confirmation (i.e.,
quantitation limits or detection limits should not be used as a
reporting threshold for GC/MS).
Total Recoverable Metals. Total recoverable metals are measured
from unfiltered samples using EPA methods specified in 40 CFR Part
136.3. A digestion procedure is used to solubilize suspended
materials and destroy possible organic metal complexes. The method
measures dissolved metals plus those metals recovered from suspended
particles by the method digestion.
Appendix B--Industrial Categories Subject to National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards
Industrial Categories with Pretreatment Standards in Effect
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Builder's Paper and Board Mills
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Feedlots
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills Manufacturing
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing
Pesticide Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Soap and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Timber Products Manufacturing
Industrial Categories with Effluent Guidelines Currently Under
Development
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging
Centralized Waste Treatment
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase I
Industrial Laundries
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Landfills and Incinerators
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase II
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 42501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.021
[[Page 42502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.022
[[Page 42503]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.023
[[Page 42504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.024
[[Page 42505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.025
[[Page 42506]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.026
[[Page 42507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.027
[[Page 42508]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.028
[[Page 42509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.029
[[Page 42510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.030
[[Page 42511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.031
[[Page 42512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.032
[[Page 42513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.033
[[Page 42514]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.034
[[Page 42515]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.035
[[Page 42516]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.036
[[Page 42517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.037
[[Page 42518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.038
[[Page 42519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.039
[[Page 42520]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.040
[[Page 42521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.041
[[Page 42522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.042
[[Page 42523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU99.043
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 42524]]
Instructions for Completing Form 2S--Application for a Sewage
Sludge Permit
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 9.4 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Send comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques to the Director, OP Regulatory
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401
M St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control number in
any correspondence. Do not send the completed Form 2S to this address.
Background Information
You can obtain a permit for your facility by filling out and
sending in the appropriate form(s) to your permitting authority. If the
State in which your facility is located operates its own authorized
sewage sludge program, then the State is your permitting authority and
you should ask your State for permit application forms. On the other
hand, if EPA operates the sewage sludge program in your State, then EPA
is the permitting authority, and you must fill out and send in Form 2S.
Be sure to read the Preliminary Information section of Form 2S
before you start filling out the form. It will help you determine
whether you must fill out Part 1 or Part 2.
Commonly Asked Questions
What If I Need More Space for My Answer?
If you need more room for your answer than is provided on the form,
attach a separate sheet called ``Additional Information.'' At the top
of the separate sheet, put the name of your treatment works and your
facility's NPDES permit number (if you have one). Also, next to your
answer, put the question number from Form 2S. Provide this information
on any drawings or other papers that you attach to your application as
well.
Will the Public Be Able To See the Information I Submit?
Any information you submit on Form 2S will be available to the
public. If you send in more information than is requested on Form 2S
that is considered company-privileged information, you may ask EPA to
keep that extra information confidential. If you want any of the extra
information to be kept confidential, tell EPA this when you submit your
application. Otherwise, EPA may make the information public without
letting you know in advance. For more information on claims of
confidentiality, see EPA's business confidentiality regulations at
Title 40, Part 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
How Do I Complete the Forms?
Answer every question on Form 2S that applies to your facility. If
your answer to a question requires more room than there is on the form,
attach additional sheets (see above). If a particular question does not
apply, write ``N/A'' (meaning ``not applicable'') as your answer to
that question. If you need advice on how to fill out these forms, write
or contact your EPA Regional Office or your State office.
Who Must Submit Application Information?
This application form collects information from all treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS) whose sewage sludge use or disposal
method is regulated by 40 CFR Part 503. This includes the following:
Any person who generates sewage sludge that is ultimately
regulated by Part 503 (i.e., it is applied to the land, placed on a
surface disposal site, fired in a sewage sludge incinerator, or placed
in a municipal solid waste landfill unit);
Any person who derives material from, or otherwise changes
the quality of, sewage sludge (e.g., an intermediate treatment facility
such as a composting facility, or a facility that processes sewage
sludge for sale or give away in a bag or other container for
application to the land), if that sewage sludge is used or disposed in
a manner subject to Part 503;
Any person who owns or operates a sewage sludge surface
disposal site; and
Any person who fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge
incinerator.
In addition, the permitting authority can require other persons to
submit permit application information.
Which Parts of the Form Apply?
Form 2S is presented in a modular format, enabling information
collection to be tailored to your facility's sewage sludge generation,
treatment, use, or disposal practices. The form tells you which parts
must be filled out for each type of applicant.
Part 1 requests a limited amount of information from ``sludge-
only'' facilities (facilities without a currently effective NPDES
permit) that are not directed by the permitting authority to submit a
full permit application at this time. This limited screening
information must be submitted as expeditiously as possible, but no
later than 180 days after publication of an applicable use or disposal
standard or 180 days before commencing operation for a new ``sludge-
only facility''. It is intended to allow the permitting authority to
identify these facilities, track sewage sludge use and disposal, and
establish priorities for permitting.
Part 2 of Form 2S is for facilities that are submitting a full
permit application at this time. Review items 1-5 of the Part 2
Application Overview on plage 6 of Form 2S to determine which sections
of Part 2 cover your facility's sewage sludge use or disposal
practices. The table below summarizes which sections cover which
activities.
Guidelines for Completing Part 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity(ies) performed A B C D E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generates sewage sludge or derives (B.1-
material from sewage sludge-- B.3)
[[Page 42525]]
that meets ceiling concentrations in
Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.13, pollutant (B.4)
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec.
503.13, Class A pathogen requirements
in Sec. 503.32, and one of the eight
vector attraction reduction options
in Sec. 503.33(b)(1)-(8)............
that is sold or given away in bag or
other container for application to (B.5)
the land.............................
that is shipped off site for treatment
or blending.......................... (B.6)
that is applied to the land in bulk
form................................. (B.7)
that is placed on a surface disposal
site................................. (B.8)
that is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator.......................... (B.9)
that is sent to a municipal solid
waste landfill....................... (B.10)
Applies bulk sewage sludge to land........
Owns or operates a surface disposal site..
Fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge
incinerator..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Information and Instructions
The following section provides clarification and additional
information for many of the questions on Form 2S. All applicants must
also be in compliance with the Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge, published at 40 CFR Part 503 (58 FR 9248). Most of the
terms used in Form 2S are defined in Secs. 503.9, 503.11, 503.21, and
503.41. Additional terms are defined in the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.2.
General Information for All Parts of Form 2S
At the top of each page of Form 2S, put your facilities
NPDES permit number (if you have one) in the appropriate space.
Always report official names rather than colloquial names.
When a facility address or site location is requested (as
opposed to a mailing address) provide the physical location of the
facility. If the facility or site lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate alternative geographic information
(e.g., township and range, section or quarter section number, or nearby
highway intersection).
Options for meeting Class A pathogen reduction are listed
at 40 CFR Part 503.32(a). Options for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listed at Sec. 503.32(b).
Vector Attraction Reduction Options 1-8 are typically met
at the point where sewage sludge is generated or where a material is
derived from sewage sludge, and Options 9-11 are typically met at the
point of use or disposal.
If a map is used to obtain latitude and longitude, provide
map datum (e.g., NAD 27, NAD 83) and map scale (e.g., 1:24000,
1:100000).
When asked for population enter the best estimate of the
actual population served at the time of application for all areas
served by the treatment works (municipalities and unincorporated
service areas). If another treatment works discharges into this
treatment works, provide on a separate attachment the name of the other
treatment works and the actual population it serves (it is not
necessary to list the communities served by the other treatment works).
When asked to submit a topographic map, make sure each map
includes the map scale, a meridian arrow showing north, and latitude
and longitude at the nearest whole second. Use a 7\1/2\-minute series
map published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which may be
obtained through the USGS Earth Science Information Center (ESIC)
listed below. If a 7\1/2\-minute series map has not been published for
your facility site, then you may use a 15-minute series map from the
U.S. Geological Survey. If neither a 7\1/2\-minute nor 15-minute series
map has been published for your facility site, use a plat map or other
appropriate map, including all the requested information. If you have
previously prepared a map that includes the required items, that map
may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if it is still accurate.
Maps may be purchased at local dealers (listed in your
local yellow pages) or purchased over the counter at the following USGS
Earth Science Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage--ESIC, 4230 University Dr., Rm. 101, Anchorage, AK 99508-
4664, (907) 786-7011.
Lakewood--ESIC, Box 25046, Bldg. 25, Rm. 1813, Denver Federal
Center, MS 504, Denver, CO 80225-0046, (303) 236-5829.
Lakewood Open Files--ESIC, Box 25286, Bldg. 810, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, CO.
Menlo Park--ESIC, Bldg. 3, Rm. 3128, MS 532, 345 Middlefield Rd.,
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, (415) 329-4309.
Reston--ESIC, 507 National Center, Reston, VA 22092, (703) 648-6045.
Rolla--ESIC, 1400 Independence Rd., MS 231, Rolla, MO 65401-2602,
(314) 341-0851.
Salt Lake City--ESIC, 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City, UT
84119, (801) 975-3742.
Sioux Falls--ESIC, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198-0001,
(605) 594-6151.
Spokane--ESIC, U.S. Post Office Bldg., Rm. 135, 904 W. Riverside
Ave., Spokane, WA 99201-1088, (509) 3532524.
Stennis Space Center--ESIC, Bldg. 3101, Stennis Space Center, MS
39529, (601) 688-3541.
Washington, D.C.--ESIC, U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1849 C St., NW, Rm.
2650, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 208-4047.
When submitting a map as few sheets as necessary should be used to
clearly show what is involved. Each sheet should be labeled with your
facility's name, permit number, location (city, county, or town), date
of drawing, and designation of the number of sheets of each diagram as
``page ____ of ____.''
The certification requirements are as follows:
An application submitted by a municipality, State, Federal, or
other public agency must be signed by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a
Federal agency includes: (1) The chief executive officer of the agency,
or (2) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A responsible corporate officer means:
(1) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president in charge of a
principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy- or decision-making functions; or (2) the
[[Page 42526]]
manager of manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing
more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures
exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to
sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a partnership or sole proprietorship
must be signed by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
Information on Specific Sections of Form 2S
Section B (Generation of Sewage Sludge or Preparation of a Material
Derived From Sewage Sludge)
Complete this section if you are a ``person who prepares sewage
sludge.'' This section pertains to any POTW or other TWTDS that
generates sewage sludge, as well as to any facility that derives a
material from sewage sludge (e.g., it composts sewage sludge or blends
sewage sludge with another material). Simply distributing sewage sludge
or placing it in a bag or other container for sale or give-away for
application to the land is not considered ``deriving a material'' from
sewage sludge (because it does not change sludge quality), and thus a
facility that only distributes or bags a sewage sludge is not required
to provide the information in this section.
B.4. Preparation of Sewage Sludge Meeting Ceiling and Pollutant
Concentrations, Class A Pathogen Requirements, and One of Vector
Attraction Options 1-8
Sewage sludge meeting all of these criteria is often referred to as
``exceptional quality (EQ)''. It is exempt from the general
requirements of Sec. 503.12 and the management practices of
Sec. 503.14, and thus fewer permitting and permit application
requirements typically pertain to facilities generating such sludge.
For this reason, if you are eligible to complete Section B.4, you may
skip Sections B.5-B.7 unless specifically required to complete any of
them by the permitting authority.
B.5. Sale or Give-Away in a Bag or Other Container for Application to
the Land
When sewage sludge is placed in a bag or other container for sale
or give-away for application to the land, either a label must be
affixed to the bag or other container, or an information sheet must be
provided to the person receiving the sewage sludge. The information
that must be on the label or information sheet is listed at 40 CFR Part
503.14(e).
B.7. Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge
If you complete this section (which requests summary information
for all bulk sewage sludge that is applied to the land), also complete
Section C for each land application site. Current regulations require
you to submit a land application plan at the time of permit application
if you intend to apply sewage sludge that does not meet the EQ
requirements to land application sites that have not been identified at
the time of permit application. The minimum requirements for this plan
are listed in Sec. 122.21(q)(9)(v). The permit writer will work with
you to develop additional details of the land application plan on a
case-by-case basis. Such details could include site selection criteria
(site slope, run-on and run-off control, etc.) and site management
guidelines (sludge application rates, access controls, etc.). A land
application plan provides for public notice when the land application
plan is developed as part of the permit, and it discusses how the
public will be notified about new sites. If any land application sites
are located in States other than the State where you generate the bulk
sewage sludge or derive the material from sewage sludge, the notice to
the permitting authority in the States where the land application sites
are located must contain the requirements listed at Sec. 503.12(i).
B.8. Surface Disposal
If you own or operate a surface disposal site, also complete
Section D.
B.9. Incineration
If you own or operate a sewage sludge incinerator, also complete
Section E.
B.10. Disposal on a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Sewage sludge placed on a MSWLF must meet requirements in Part 258
concerning the quality of materials placed on a MSWLF unit. Part 258
specifies minimum Federal criteria for MSWLFs, including landfills that
accept sewage sludge along with household waste. In contrast to Part
503, Part 258 controls sewage sludge placed on MSWLFs through a
facility design and management practice approach. In Part 503, EPA has
adopted the Part 258 criteria as the appropriate standard for sewage
sludge disposed of with municipal waste. EPA concluded that if sewage
sludge is disposed of in a MSWLF complying with Part 258 criteria,
public health and the environment are protected. Note that the POTW is
legally responsible for knowing whether a MSWLF is in compliance with
Part 258 and may be liable if it sends its sludge to an MSWLF that is
not in compliance with Part 258.
Section C (Land Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge)
Complete this section if you completed Section B.7 (Land
Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge). Unless the permitting authority
specifically requires you to complete this section, you may skip this
section for sewage sludge that is covered in any of the following
sections of this application:
Section B.4. Such sewage sludges are exempt from the
general requirements and management practices of Part 503 when they are
land applied (unless the permitting authority requires otherwise), and
thus the site information in Section C is not required for permitting.
Section B.5 Section C does not cover the sale or give-away
of sewage sludge in a bag or other container for application to the
land because EPA typically will not control the users of such sewage
sludge (typically, home gardeners or other small-scale users), or the
land on which the sludge is applied, through the generator's permit.
Section B.6 Section C does not apply to a generator that
sends sewage sludge to another facility for treatment or for blending,
because the Part 503 requirements addressed by Section C will largely
be the responsibility of the receiving facility.
Provide the information in this section for each land application
site that has been identified at the time of permit application. In
cases where the sewage sludge is applied to numerous sites with similar
characteristics, you may combine the information for several sites
under a single response (the name and address of each site must still
be provided, however).
C.5. Crop or Other Vegetation Grown on Site
a. If the crop or vegetation to be grown on the site is not yet
known, or is likely to change in an unforeseeable manner during the
life of the permit, you may so indicate instead of providing the type
of crop or other vegetation.
b. Information on the nitrogen content of vegetation grown on the
site may be obtained from local agricultural extension services, a
local Farm Advisor's Office, or published sources.
C.6. Vector Attraction Reduction
Options 1-8 were covered in Section B.3, which requests information
on sewage sludge treatment at the facility generating the sewage
sludge. If you met any of options 1-8 (e.g., processes to
[[Page 42527]]
reduce volatile solids, reduce specific oxygen uptake rate, raise pH,
raise percent solids), you should have identified that option in
Question B.3.c and described how the option is met in Question B.3.d.
By contrast, vector attraction reduction options 9 and 10 are
typically met at the land application site. Options 9 and 10 are not
available for sewage sludge applied to a lawn or home garden.
C.7. Cumulative Loadings and Remaining Allotments
Complete Section C.7. only for sewage sludge that is applied to the
site subject to cumulative pollutant loading rates (CPLRs). Sewage
sludge applied to the site on or before July 20, 1993, is not subject
to this section. You may not apply bulk sewage sludge subject to CPLRs
to the site until you have contacted the permitting authority in that
State.
Section D (Surface Disposal)
Complete this section if you own or operate a surface disposal site
and are required to submit a full permit application (i.e., Part 2 of
Form 2S) at this time. A sewage sludge surface disposal site is, by
definition, a treatment works treating domestic sewage, and the owner/
operator of the site is required to apply for a permit. You are
required to submit Part 2 of this form (including Section D) if:
The surface disposal site is already covered by an NPDES
permit (e.g., a POTW's NPDES permit); or
You have been required by the permitting authority to
submit a full permit application at this time.
If none of these criteria apply, you should submit Part 1 instead
of Part 2 (and may therefore skip Section D). Part 1 requests a limited
amount of information from so-called ``sludge-only'' facilities
(facilities without a currently-effective NPDES permit) that are not
requesting site-specific permit limits and are not otherwise required
to submit a full permit application at this time. Part 1 is intended to
allow the permitting authority to identify these facilities, track
sewage sludge use and disposal, and establish priorities for
permitting.
D.1. Information on Active Sewage Sludge Units
Most requirements for surface disposal of sewage sludge under Part
503 pertain to individual active sewage sludge units at a surface
disposal site. Permit conditions for your facility may be developed on
a unit-by-unit basis, or may be developed for the entire surface
disposal site if all units are sufficiently similar.
D.4. Ground-Water Monitoring
Placement of sewage sludge on an active sewage sludge unit must not
contaminate an aquifer. Compliance must be demonstrated through either:
(1) The results of a ground-water monitoring program developed by a
qualified ground-water scientist, or (2) certification by a qualified
ground-water scientist that contamination has not occurred. This
section solicits existing ground-water monitoring data and other
documentation to indicate the potential for contamination of an aquifer
at the active sewage sludge unit, and the capability of the owner/
operator of the surface disposal site to demonstrate that contamination
has not occurred.
D.5. Site-Specific Limits
After August 18, 1993, you are allowed to seek site-specific
pollutant limits only for good cause, and must do so within 180 days of
becoming aware that good cause exists. If you request site-specific
pollutant limits with this permit application, you are required to
submit information supporting the request, including a demonstration
that existing values for site parameters specified by the permitting
authority differ from the values for those parameters used to develop
the pollutant limits in Table 1 of Sec. 503.23. You must also submit
follow-up information at the request of the permitting authority. If
the permitting authority determines that site-specific pollutant limits
are appropriate, he or she may specify site-specific limits in the
permit as long as the existing concentrations of the pollutants in the
sewage sludge are not exceeded.
Section E (Incineration)
Complete this section if you own or operate a sewage sludge
incinerator. A sewage sludge incinerator is, by definition, a treatment
works treating domestic sewage, and the owner/operator of a sewage
sludge incinerator is required to submit a full permit application
(i.e., Part 2 of Form 2S).
E.3. Beryllium NESHAP
The firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the National Emission Standard (NESHAP) for beryllium as
established in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 61. The beryllium NESHAP only
applies, however, to sewage sludge incinerators firing ``beryllium-
containing waste.'' The beryllium NESHAP is 10 grams of beryllium in
the exit gas over a 24-hour period, unless the incinerator owner/
operator has been approved to meet a 30-day average ambient
concentration limit on beryllium in the vicinity of the sewage sludge
incinerator of 0.01 g/m3. Complete this section to demonstrate
compliance with the beryllium NESHAP.
E.4. Mercury NESHAP
The firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the NESHAP for mercury as established in Subpart E of 40 CFR
Part 61. Complete this section to demonstrate compliance with the
mercury NESHAP. Information on stack testing and sewage sludge sampling
can be found at 40 CFR Parts 61.53 and 61.54.
[FR Doc. 99-18866 Filed 8-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
