Implementing the national water pollution control permit program progress and problems, environmental protection agency : report to the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

1 Coastal zone Prpryo cc Lir yJN23m
* informatoni i i 17
Center _ ~'

~~~~~, ~ ~ cE

0, deett
r~4~rET -Z N

I~~~~~~ A fl-itI V.O

Y~rgrs Aid Prblm

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

Envko~me ntaI Protectio n Agentcy

U ~~~~~~~~~be-corm the key; to Acanpng Li the NakionsQ

-irmwn Ith e thmkOOU4 a %Vcm* , , or-o v

~tjuieang ppeas o pemit U. S- DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE.NOAP
t-wuavnsbatny suicvt~~aofersi. con0tCOASTAL SERVICES CENTER
.-t~akina ihexeoe sopermi on234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
t~,,m titv the Thousetstd of di%,cmae XHARLESTON, SCI 29405-24 13

423
1365 --si expiring ft-o~:tem mtmicipa!
o 976 wermits and maaityino, V.ioe lalothe
*mmli permitz to reficcz, achizw~able
'-6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F Li

- .. COMFrROLLER CXWER~AL OF 'n, UNIMD STATES

Subcomitte. v tion andReview
Committee on Public Works and
*Transportation
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman.

-As you requested on December 10, 1974, we are reportina
on the prozrs and Toroblems of the Enyironmental Protection
Agency in- implementing the national water Pollution control
permit pzogram.

As agreed to by your officer ve obtained the Aqency s
written. commients on- a. draft of this 'rew- rt ~see act). I) and
discussed Pertinent sections of the reroort with the water
pollution control agencies of the four States-included in
our review.

The Agency stated that in qeneral~ the report Present~s
an accurate assesment of the overall problems whichhae
affected the Permit program. The Agency also said that it
whad recognized the major program inadeauacies. and is
currently rectifyinq theni throuqh 'policy changes and revised
reqional quidance.

We invite your attention to the Ifact that this report
contains . a zecommend'ation to -the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agencv which' IS bet forth on
.oase 11. As you knowi section 236 of the-L_ qslative
Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the head. of a Federal
* aency to -submit a writ-ten statement o I actions takeni on
our recommendations to the H-ouse: ad Senate Commoittees on
Govern-ment Operations not later than 60 days after the

-~~~~~~~~~�' . ... ::
::I~~~~--:ii:: :i~'� :�!:':�:;., ;;i~/- ........
-7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

-166506 ..'

date of the report and to 'the eiouse anC Senate Committees
on .Amprooriations with the aqe.,cyts first request for
approoriations made more -than 60 days after the ;ate of
---the report. 'We will be in touch with your office in the
near future to arrange for release'of the report so that
the requirements of section 236 can. be' set in motion.

... . Z
sin O Ey, ou S

Comptroller. General
- of the' United .States

I.~ ~~Ib
�� .

Paqe
DIGESTi

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION
*Federal -water Pollution Con~'trol Act.
Amendments of 19fI
Scope of r ev ie w3

2 ~STATUS Op PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PR03LE MS 4.
Permits~ issued 4
*Thousan~ds of additional dischar-4ers
may rneed permits 5
Slow State assumption of permit
program7
Problems inh establishirg monitoring
control sytem8
Conclusions 1
Recommendation to the Administrator,
EPA11
~Aqency comments 1
Matter for consideration by -the
Subcommittee 1

3 INDUSTRIAL PERMIT~ PROGRAM FACES MAJOR
PROBLEMS 12
Progr~ess is being made 13.
Final effluent limitation guidelines
not available or applicable 14-
Effluent limitation uidelines
challenged .18
Chcallenges to aermit co-ad itions .21
Problems-in monitoring and
en~forcing Dermit conditions .26
.. Conclusions 29
matter for consideration by the
Subcommittee 30

4 . PERMIT PROGRAM WILL NOT INSURE
MUNICIPALITIES' COMPLIANCE WITH~ WATER
Q~JALITY REQUIREMEINTS 3 I ' 3
Progress is being made 32
*Federal funding * 33
Municipalities unable to comply with
* * . July 1, 1977, requirements 3
Compliance with P ermitcniin 38

I ~ ~ ~ *~

. Enforcement -': - - 40
- Conclusions - 40
fMatter for consideration by the
Subcomittee 42'

APEENDIX

: fI 00 Letter dated December 30, 1975, -rom the
.Environmental Protection Agency to-the
General Accounting Office 43

II Ten examples of industrial NPDES permits 44

III Ten examples of municipal NPDES permits 67

: v : I Glossary of terms a.d definitions 83

- ABBREVIATIONS

-EPA: Environmental Pro.tection Agency

: ..- t GAO General Accounting .Office

:NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

0": .OMB ; 'Office of Managaement and Budget.

CoMT~c~hLP GE.EA~ THPLEMEA'Trii I'E ~Ar~l
REPORrT IO TIE, SUO 13MM Ti~EE ON WATER POLLUTION C3fRD T-
1AVESTIGAT109bS ADR~1W PERM4IT '1?AGRA.4, LRES
COHNITPkEE ON P~UBLIC WUKS AND: AND PROBLEMS
* ~~TRAWSPORTAkPION Environmental Protect ion
~HOUSE OF REgRESEITN VbS, Aqency

1)IG EST

Although orozaress ria sbeen made, the
Envi.-onmental'Protection Agency faces major
administra'tive and oroqram iproblems'that need
to be overcome before the national water
Pollution control nermit~proqram can become
the key to cleaninq no the Nation's waterways
as intended hy the.Congress.

It is Questionable whether all industrial and
a majority of municipal discharqers will be
able to construct abatement facilities
necessary to meet water quiality requirements
by Juily . 1; 177jas required by the Federal
Water Poll'ution Control' Act, Amendmeats of
1972.

The Subcommittee may therefore wish to Dropose
legislation givirn'the Agency the author ity to
extend on a -case-by-case basis the July 1,
1917, deadline. ~See Po. '30 and 42.)

STATUS OF PROGRAM AND
ADMINISTRATIV~E PROBLEMS~

A's of June 30, 1975,~ th e Agency or the States
had issued permits to 36,800 dischargers, or
6,9 percent of the 33,300 industrial and 19,700
municioal aoilicants... The Agencv, however,
faces an almost 'izvossible task if, as a result
of a U.S. district court decision., it has to
issue individual Permits for an estimated 1.8
million animal feedlots, 100,000 stormwater
discharge xoint ~sources, and a large but
ondetermined number of agricultural and
* silvicultural activities. (See or). 4 to 7.)

GhO. Suqqested. that. the Subcommittee tprooose
* legislation qivinq the Agency '-he authority to
exempt dischargers which have a minimal adverse
Imoact on water (reality from obtaining oer-nits.
(See 0. 1.

TIUStw~ Uponi remroval. the repott
cozyer Caere should be noted hereon. RE-6C

The ec has , so had 1-,mited he lo from the
.taites--onlyZ27 Sltates hava-assumed resoonsi-
J~~~~~~ b.I ity' for the permit &orcram as, of December
1975--and has exuerienced ]Droblems~ in estab-
lishin a cozoutzr-based system to monitor
dischargers' co - liance; with permit conditions.
(see IDID 7 t6 10.)

GAO recommended t~hat'the Agency encourage and
assist the States in assuaging the oermi t
* ~~~rograni.. The Agency aqreed. (See. p. 11.

INDUSTRIAL PERMIT PROGRAM
FACES MAJOR PR~OELZMS

The effluent discharqe limitations in 50 indus-
*tial permits GAO'reviewed were, for the vaost
part, not based on final guidelines setting
forth uniform efffluent limitations for- indus-
trial dischargers by cateqory or class as
intended by the-Conqress. The guidelines were
not cublished in time to'. be used or were not
analicable. (See DO. 14 to 17.) . (See auu. Ix
for examples Of' industrial periniits- included in
the 'LAO samplIe.)

Lawsuits--145 as of June 30, 197.5--challenqinq
* -. effluent limitations guidelines have reciuired
- Agncy staff time to nrerpare- defenses of
technical issuies, taking away, time staff could
sbend on Dreroarinq quidelines,~ and may
*adversely affect the -permit oroqram and the
- ikelihood of achieving water cruality goals
* ~~if ~ some. of the challenqes are. successful.
(See op. la ta 20..)

iNationwide,' adjudicatdry hearings. requests for
.modification of 450 (23 Dercent) of' the 2.000
Agency-issued major indusltrial me-rrit were
sending, as of Seotember- 12, 1975. Until the
* .. . ~~~~challenqes are resolved, -abaterment action for
* ** ~~~~those elements in dispute may be delayed, and
if delayed lonq enouqh, it may be difficult for
*the discharge -to Meet hiis oermit conditions
by -j ly I, 19277-the -deadline recruired by the
1.972 ~amendmerts.~ (See on.. 21 to 26.)

Some -industrial dischargers were not adhering
-0 the.r abatement sc~iedules, effluent. limita-
tions, o: reporting requirements. It is too
early '.o tell whet-her enforcement of industrial.

arM.i 1 condtis- will be e f fec t jqe. S

PSERM~IT P.ROG.R-A~ WILL NO-JINSLJRE-~
H4UNICIPALITIES' COM!PLIAN~CE WJlI

* The Aencv est~intated thiat almost all- municioal
oerm its will .need 1 to be either reissuedi or
* modified in fis~cal, year 197T. ' ca~� ;%eO. various
-reasons. (fSee 'oo. 31 and,32.).

* The Agency estimated that 56 rtercent of 16,700
municipal dischargers nationwide will, nor meet
~Wat-er quality recuiritements by'July I- l97?, as
required by the 1972 amen~dments. The avail-
~abilil~v of Federal construction qrant, funds is
-the Drincioal factor--not oermit~s--in qettinc;
t unicinalities to constructor uocfade waste
water treat~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~-ent* facilities, to abate oltin
(See a lso:o. PIII11 for exaiole of uniczinal permits
included in the GAO 7sample.)

Thie Conqress provided $18 billion in~Federal
. funds to finance'75.oercent~of the constru-c-
tion, of Toublicly' owned -waste. waters treatment
facilitios for fiscal yvea rs -19 3- 75. Federal
f und ing had aroceeded& at a slow, nace--6nly
$6.6 billion had bpeea obliqated- at JunL- 330
* 95, an o ly1 billion -soent--and. est-1-ted
funds needed to const~ruct facilitizs---$342
billioln--far exceeded funds orovided. (See
o.31; to., 38.)

The Acgency and the StatA.es do naot planr to ~take
entforcement actionis 'against munici~al~ities
*who ca unnot meet the Julvil, 1977b deadli7ne
becauise of a lack of Federal fl-ind-in annd,
therefore, the nerimit as an enforcement too-L
is of limited benefit.- The.Agencv has.
recommended to- the Off-ice of' Man aqe-me nt and
Budget. thiat the deadline be extended fou
cas7e-by-case ba~is. (See o. 4d.)

'~~~~~~~~~~~~EIR

C HAPTER I

rL'NTRODUM'ON

In ~a Decembe 10, 1974, letter the himn
* stibcommittee' or; Investicat-ions ard Rizview, House COM7,~ittee
a n iPublic Works and Drno ratizn,, *ske us to review h
*.status and reasonablene-ss of oer-nits issued byv the
Environmental �'rotecti~onx Agency ~P~and the St-te undez
the ~4ational Pollutant Dis charcie 6li~pnation System (NOtDES)
estbise .te Federal "ater Polilution -Cintrol Act.
Amendments -of. I1972 (33 tY.S.C.. 12a1).

F'EDERAL -WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1472

The 1972 amendments declare that the objective of t1he
'Federal Water Pollution Control Act is to restore and
maintain the chemical, �yhsical, and bioloqical integritv
* of-the Nation's w.aters. To achieve this objective it
established the followinq major: (oals, toolicies, and
requirements.

Goals

The goals are to:

--sliminate by 1985 the discharge of' bollutants, in--1r
*navigable waters.

-.-Achievle by. July 11, 1983? wherever attainable, an
interim goal of water quality which Provides for
protectingand propaq:~tinzq fishi shell'ish, and
wildlife and which. pro'7ides for recreation in and
on 'the water.

Policies

The 0o1icies are to:

- -Pr.6hibit discharge: of toxic oallqtants~ in toxic
* ~~amounts.

1-T Ie amendments def-ine th.e term~ 'oollutant'! as dredged
sDoil; sol: i- waste'-inciner tion resid-a sewaqe; qacba~e;
sewage: sludge; munios chemial wastes; biological
mat-erials; radioactive materials; heat; wrecked o,: dis-.
carded. equibmeat; rock; sand', cellar di~rt;,arid industrial,
minii~al andagriultral was-e discharges- into water..

munic ina I and agricultu Ze~~~~~~~~~~~~

--Prov ide Federal financial assistance' to construct
*Aublicly own~ed waste water treatmetnt works.

--,Make a major research and demonstration effort to
develolD the -techno~loay neCenssary to eliminate the
discharae of ---Pllutanlts iftO naviciable waters, ea~ters
Of, the contiguous zon~e, a nd oceans.

ReQuirements.

The requirepaefts are to:

--Achieve by July .1, 1977, effluent limitations1 for
I.DoInt. sources2 other- than 'oublicly owned teat-ment
works by applvino- the best- obracticable controlI
* ~~~~technology currently available as definmed-bv the
A~dministrator, EPA, or any more stringent limitations
* ~~~~neceSSarv to teet water aualitv standards.

* --Achieve bv July 1. 1983, effluentilimitations for
%Oi~nt Sources other than zubliclv owned treatment
works by aoolving the best avajiabie technoloqv
econoiuically achievable as'defined' bv'the
Administrator;, EpAN.

--For Diblicly owned treatment works, a~nlv

I., Secondary trea tme nt f or a 1l facilitieS ano!roved
* for construction before June 303, 197-4, or ina
existence on July,~L. 1977, or, the t~echnoloqv
* necessarV to meet More-str-inqent limitations
~establlhe to :achieve wate~riaualitv standards
or standards that are cart of, a schedule of
-comoliance bv July If, 1977.

2. Best oracticable waste tr ea tm ent techniol (> vby
J uly 1, 1983.

lcordinq -othe act, restrctions established by a State,
or the Administrator oi quaritities, rates, and concentra-
tion of chemical, Ohysical, biological, and other
constituents discharged from n:oint-sources.

2Acordflqto the at, any discernible, confined , ;~nd
: discrete co n veya n ce f r o - wh ich oollutahts are- or may be

Paor th~e iour- ose of adont iror revising effluent
Ili -i ta ti o ns ,the amendmelnts rea'xired EPA to oublish by
-October 18, 1973, requlations qiving effluent limitation
* q~~~~uidelines foe classes and categories of- industrial
-discharqers . The amendments also required EPA to pxublish:
* ~~~~information on secondary treatment by- December 18, 1972,
ard onaalbe alternative waste treatment technioues
and systems for oublicly~ owned treatment works oy July 18.
1973.'

The rNPDES roermit oroaram is the means- for enforcing
effluent limitations and induring Lhat requirements of the
1972 amendments for controlling discharges and complying
with water quality standards are raet. It, is ill~egal to
*discharqe Pollutants into the Nation's Navigable waters
%ifthout- an rIPDES cermit.: Discharqers are subject to civil
.uenalties uv to Sl0,000 a day for violationis of ipermit
*conditions. Willful or negligent violations could bring a
*fine up to $25,000 a day and I year in orison for the fiirst
offense and, Io to $50f00(- a day and 2 years in orison for
subsequent violations.

-EPA and States wi-th EPA-aaoroved oroqrams- issueormt
with fixed terms, not -exceeding 5 years. The ;-ermits
spcfy-ef fluent~ limitations, compliance time schedules,
*self-monitorinq, and revortinq requireme-nts. Before a
Federal ipermit is issued, the Stt nwihtedshrge
originates is required to certify that the-discharqe will
compl witha~olcable statutory requirements.

SCOPE OF :REVIEW -

Our reviewi- of th~e IIPDES Dermit program was, conducted
at. EPA,,headquarters- and in regions-III and V. We reviewed
- - - 2o0municipal p)ermits and 50 industrial.per'mits issued to
2 ~dischargers in four Stiates--Delaware, Pennsylvainia,'Illinois,
and Wisconsin.

we interviewed officials at' EPA. headqauarters in
* - - W~~KshinqtCM, D.C.; EPA regional offic~es in Chicago (req-ion V)
* . - ~an d Philadelnhia (region III); and State water collution
control agencies or devartments in Dover, Delaware;
Srringfield, Illinois- -Harri~sburg, Pennsylvania; and:Madison,
?ct btWisconsin. W te also onacted and-obained information from
.29 municioali-ties or their consulting ericine~ers and .17
industrial discharqers and examined 9ertinent Federal and
State agencie~s' documents, record's, and other. literature.

CtzkPrpR 2

STAI.P.Js 3a' eRORAH .ARO ADN NI lSTRATlI.E PROSMA�S

Asof June 30, 19 75,. EPA. and the-States Processed and
issued about .36,800 ',DPOES -.-~rmits to industrial and muni.ciaal
.discharqers.,or 60 bercent-of -the 53,000-dischar~ers'who
subminitted anolications. An~ EPA official told us on Juily 31.
1975, that there was no firm~tarqet date for issuing the
remainer of tbek ;:ermits. EPA's Dolicv was to conce~ntrate
its nermit issuance effort on major dischar,4ers. Bv, emoha-
sizi~ng issuinq -nermits; to major discharqers, minor dis-
charqes wl vlesime to. me e th uly1 97
deadline.

Ilthounh9 b nercent of the 'aonlicants have beef issued
nermits, EPA faces Dr-oblerns or has had oroblems, administer ing
the.NDES vermnil[ orog ram because:

--A U.S. district court ruled'that, all no-int sources of
.disclaree must obtain a cermit,. hih nweans an esti-
mzated~ 1.866 million animal' feedlots,~ 100,000 stores
wate~r dischartqe point sour e's, and. a larqe, but unde-
term~ihod,-- number of agricultural a nd s iIv i-cultu ra i
activities -av have to be -issued nermits at a cost
in exc4ess of. $1-billion.,

*. - -EPA' has. had.t~6 retaih-most of the' administrative work-
* . .*load in orocessing; issuing, monitoring, and enforcing
permits, because onlyv 24 States -as -of June, 30, 1975,_
had -assumed resnonsibility for administering the
* . roqram

--EPA was. unabLe,. af ter- soend-inc ~2 3 million to' develno
an extensive com'uter~ based syrstem that would keeb
* . . . ~~~~track. of and analvze- da-ta,. to de-ter-mind whether dis-
chargers were adhering to abatement acticovis and
effluent Ilim.itations. -

- . ~PERMITS ISSUTED

EPA, pstabl i qed a goal of issuina all oermito by
* flee~bet 31,1914. because the 19 72.-amendm~ents orovided
* mi4 ro or-osection Until, toat datefto any discharaer
-who had a -_)Ii ed f or a bet-mit but hiad not bCeen. issued orne if.
* the =_nolication -lady not been adm inistratively comnleted.

* 1he cultivation a F forest trees.

However, EPA --tated i n its Search 147 4 Wate rQua-li tv Stra teav
Paoer that since admi-nistrative or technical. oroblems miqht
* oreclude ~~reacnhing this qoal, vemit issuance effot shoulId
concentrate on majo dischargers anid on those fowic a
* ~~~~lengthy abatement schedule ~was eknected.

The~ f ollowine table' comtoar es ioertaoiain n
.ssuances for :najor. and minor industrials and rnunicioal dis-
charqe rs as of June-30, 197a.

Major 'Minor Total

industrial dischargers.,

Anyolications received. 3,138 30,204 33,342
Permits issued:.
rAumber 2,1 797 171,29-4 2G1,091
Percent d9.57 60
Permits unissued.
Number 341 12,910 13,25-1
Percent 11 43 40

-Municioal discharaers:

ATnblications received 2,930 16,729 19,659
PerMits issued.
tNuMber 2,7.14 13,950 16,664'
Percent . 93 83 85
Permnits unissued,
Number .21 2:,7 9 ~2,995
Percent .717 15

THOUSANDS: OF ADDITlOiNAL~ DISC-HARGERS MAY
NEED-PERMITS

As a result of a ?ederal district ~court rulina, EeA may
* . ~~~have to issue thousands or Der-its to oreviously exe nt~ea
discharqers.

The 0.S. Distrc Court for the Disrc of: Clmi a
ruled on Marcih 24, 1975,~ (Civil Action .1629-731' that all
ooint sources must obtain a -ermit under section 402 of the'
act and that EPA has no discretion to exemot classes. or
cat~~~~~qories of sources from the N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DES oermit oro~~~~~~~~~~~fsoucearfl. In aIESnemi

within s ecified t-ime fram~es ranqinoq from 9 to 12 months,.
EPA oublish final creoulations extEndinq the XPDES oerrnit
orogram to include allinoint sources in th~e concentrated
animal feedinu ooeration cateaorv, seoarate storm sewer
Cateqorv,. agriculture cateaorv (other thAn concentrated
* ~~~~feedinq operations), -arid the silviculture cateqorV.

EPA's Dolicv had beer'' to, ellenot~ from the !Oermit bronram
an estiate 1i6,0 !point sources of dis~harae- from seoarat
storm water severs. ~ urther SPA~exemnted small dischargersw
* includinq ~smail. feedlots# and agricultural and silvicultural
activities which were,~ not Considered to, be Major contributors
* of bollution. Also, a large number of privatelv owned
sewaoe treatment olants-had not a~oniejd for uertnits.

Accordinq to an EPA of ficial, in ZMav 115~ "PA. requested
*the Deoartmeht-of Justice to appeal the court's rajinq.. As
of Sentember 16, 1975, EPA had not been told whether the
Denartmen-t nlanned to aooeal the rulino

EPA exempted fromithe requirement ~for obtainina dis-
charge nermit~s feedlots 'havina fewer thlan specified numbers
* of anitals. For examolIe, feedlots which handle, fewer than
*li00t slaughter steers~and heifers or l0,003 sheet) at one
* time were not re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uired, to obtain oermits. EPA justified~~~~~~~~~~~~~e t otan erit. P: u,'
* ~thi~T action'on the basis that. such feedlots have a Minimal
* ~adverse i'loact. oh water crualitv and the cost of orocessina
and issuincroer-mit-s to all feedlots would be prohibitive.

EPA :estim a o .&ated that about 14'0O0 of18 -illion feedlots
,would be ~reauired to obtain oermits oursuiant to its criteria.
E PA also-estirrated that ~the cost of crocessinq and issuinq
Vermits to all feedlots would exceed $1,billion., An EPA
* ~~off icial 'said that~ EPA had no data on the number of
aqricultural ;and silvicultural 00int'sources of discharae. -

EPA of fic ial s estimated that-there may be as many as
*100,000,orivatelv ownedsewaqe treatment plants, and -most
had ~not filed apollications. for permits. These'treatment
olats erve residenial housinq develonments, trailer marks,
commercial and manufacturina erl'terorises,. and oublic ~insti-
*.tutions. In a'Nove~mber 22, 1974, memorandum, EPA officials
* ~~concluded with resoect to- privately owned- sewacae treatment
*Olantsi that:

'Th6 .larqe number of ~facilities means we: tave a
* ~~Major nonfiler orobolecm.. Substantial EA .-n d
*State resources will bte needed to' obtain
anplications from and issue- bermits to sucrh
-facilities, even if w-e-T,,olIov streamlined
technioues.

*Tefacilities a re bv no, means all small I ack-
.aqe niants. A or-portion are fairly *larqe, n
*many are clustered around- urbar Iareas. Good
ooerati~on and maintenance of lamne and clustered
facilities is essential to avoid adverse imoact
on water c~ual itv.

"The vast majorityl of these facilitiel'~ ar e not
scheduled for. replacement -byva reqqional facility..
They are Derm~anent.

*The number and nature of exis~inq facilities
support the conclusion' that. there ar'e -thousands
of new ories each -year which would faillinto the
pateqory of newsaurces if we promulgated-new
source -performance standards'.for non-Fede-rally
funded sewage treatment. -facilities."

- - - ~SLOW nSTATE ASSUMPTION OF PERMIT PROGRAM

The 1972 amendments state that it -is the bolicy of 'the
Conciress to recoqnizeff oreserve,- and protect :the primary
responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce,
-and eliminate ;water pollution.. The amendments- also provide
~that the States could assume-the administration of the
laermit proqram subject to EPA-approval. The slow State
assumption has placed burdens 'on EPA 'in orocessing. issuing,
mpnitoringf' and enforcing oermits.

As of June 30, 1975,~ EPA. had Qatartnorized- 2A States--I
in 'fiscal year 1973,. 14 -in 1974,: and 9 in 1975--to issue
.Ischar~qe, Permits. Of the apotoximately 36,800 permits
issued to: industriail and:rnupiqi-al disc-harqers- through
Juzne 30, -11975~, EPA issued about 23,700;.~ or 64 percent.
* -7~urther, 14.States with approved proqrams do not hav~e
leqislativ6:authority to enforce per~ntsisudbEA
- -before te. St ,took over the aroaram, and EPA will have
to eni-orce these permits. -
~Iniaddition to the 24 States with approved permit
< v~~~~rogramts,.: EPA ~had under f iai a'review -the pr~oposedi'programs
of 3 States at Jur~e 30, 1975. Most of the remaining 29r
States and territories were not-.exvected to have anoroved
permit~ programs before 1976 tbecausieof ()lack of interest
in 7 articipation in the,.noqram, (2)lakostttr -
authority, .(31 deficiencies in Legislation- al--'eady enacted,
And/or 141. limited resources. -

For-examole, PerinsvivTania, tire lIargest~ State in req iorf
III, in terms of ~the number- of discharqers, had not-assumed
* program responsibility as of June 30,,1975. EPA had hooed
Pennsylvania woiuld assu'me program responsibility since this
wou~ld considerable reduce EPA's workload. However, because
(1) the State law had penalties less stringent than pro-
vided in the 1972 amendments andi(2) State procedures for
assuring public participation did not conform with EPA
regulations; program responsibility could'not be assumed
until these differences were resolved..

- 7

in- re gijon V' iP o ff i ci')L s inf sr m e dus thpt -1IIino is
had not avol1ied for 'the nroar~Am orimarilv beciause ths Statie
-objects to EPA's continuinci r~vew*-toiv Aeface %e r iti
issuance.

EPA nas the nrilmarv- resnons-ibi-litv for enforciria
-SPA-iss'ied t~ermlits in most States, includiin States with
W ~aloroved: ner-nit mroaram-s. Stat-e :leaislative author itv is
7 needed before States' with aoiroved orocirams can enforce
Eioh-issued Ioermits. Fourteen States--California-. Colorado,
Connecticut,. Delaware, Georqia, Kansas, 'iissouxri. gebraskal.
sIorth Dakota, Oreaoou South Carolina, Vermont, Washi-aton.
and wlyomin ido not 'nave thais legislative authority, and
OPA will have to enforce the ~oermits it issued~.

Ten States with aoorovedorqas-aai Indiana,
*Marvland, Mi~~hiqano Xinnesota,1 Mississ-inni, Niontana, Ohio~,
llirqinia, and 4isconsin--ars either enforcing orolan to
enforce EPA-issued nermits.

PROBLEMS 1I EA3dIG MON'ITORL'JG
COINTROLz SYSTE

EPll spent about $2 .32 million. in an un-sucesf
atternot *to dev-la* a L ~ihlIe co-nouter-.based -syz;tem foe
*tracking and -analyzing da~ta,. to dete'rmine whether'dis-
charqers were adherinci to oollution abatement actions and
effluent 1iinitations as required by their discharge Toermits.

'After. the major effort to issue as manv~oermits as
n ossible by, 'ecember 31. 1974. orocirant emuhasis in EPA
s ifted :from permit issune to com~oluiance. EAsi h
or imary objective, of the iI9DE.3 r.'ernit .oroqram in fiscal vear
1976 was to, assure t'hat a hiqh oercentace of major dis-
charqers. were: in comol ianc-e with the ir permit conditions.
To ascertain whether disacharqers are com.olving with their
* . erMits, (1) adherence to -the dermit abatement schedules
and (2) adherrence to the effluent Limitations qenerally
z must be monitored.

In the two ~ea ions included in our review, EPA required..
dischrqersto submit

--a oroqress recort or a writter. notice of comoliance
or noncompliance with the so.ecific abatement actions
required bw the dates, contained in thre abatement
schedules and

--a auarterlv reciort showing whether dischargers hsave
monitored and adhered to effluent limitations for
each outfall, as cantainea inthe oerinit.

%4onitor Inq the abatement actions and adherence. to
f Iflaent' limitations of the 36,dOO industrifal and municioal
dischargers issued oaermits as of June 30, 1175, is a large
updertakinq.~ For examnle, on the basis of our samiple, the
36,.UO discharae nermits could cover as. manv as 10,000
outfalls forlwhich separate discharge monitoring' reoorts.
would'. be required quarterly. Further'. there is the
Dossiblility that many thousands of additional voint sources
may have- to be monitored i Pisruired to su emt
~to an estimated. 100,000 --rivatetreatment Dl~ants and 1.86
Millio aniimal.feedlots.

Iii June~ 1972 EPA, 'eqan develoo-'aa a qeneral
noint-scource. file system 'which would orov~ide a hiqhlv flex-
ible and 'easy-to-use reoortina systerr and which would allow
* users trerieve desired information oft noint sources, such
as -when abatement actions are due and whether dischargers are
* achievinq effluent, limitations, without ie~iic ans(ca
bioroqrarninq assistance. The system was desiqned to iorovide
for standardiz-inq and consolidatinq noint-source information
from many separate and sometimes.-redundant files into a4
'Sinqie .centralized data .base.

* The development of 'the system 'had~ manv serious broblems.
including Iost user data, delays in undatinq the data base
with new information, and difficulties in retrieving data.
Because of 'these oro:lems, the E-?A regions lost confidence
* in the system's ability to orovide the data,-needed for the
sUccessfuil 'implementation of the oermit proqraln. The system
was phased out in 1975.

The'cost for develooinq the system totaled about $2.32.
* million, consisting -of about $1.5 million 'for computer time.
used& throuqh ~December 31,-1974,1 antd about $822,000:estimated.
for. contracted services throuqh Marc 1 95

- To evaluate the orogress of the qeneral'noint-source
fi'le system, t-1 1h ired a manaqement consulting firm to make
* a m an~aqement audit. - The audit was maedur-inq June to
Auclust -1974.

In: an Aujust. 28,: 1974, reoorti thi- firm concluded that.

.-The; system did not. currently sulaaort .its users' needs..

*-twas doubtful, whether currently contracted develoya
ment~~~J 8f~t ~l ucceed in rectifying this failure.
* -Failures were or imar ily attributableoalckf

mnanaqement control- the absence. of cleat system

objectives ~reflectin~q EVA's prioritv oi nee-d, and
alack of senior ma eet findrersaridinq of the
-system developments lo-ocess-

~n EPA'-Official told us that EPA had taken certain
actions'to insure that the Droblems -encoijntered in the devel-
oo~mnt and- operation of the'general voint-source-file svstem
would not recur. EPA published an administr ative order in
Aizril 1974 and issued a~ manual in March l975 settinm forth
poliZ.ies and vrocedures for acquicinqanusg eletoi
data larc.,iessing.

Late in 1974 EPA developed a com-outer-based laermit
comiDliance- svystem- to arovide EPA reqional offices with
monthly listi-nqs of all abatement. schedule reroorts and
self-monitorino discharge resorts that should be-received
from oermiit~ holders during the-cominq month.. The system does
not show whether discharcxers; are. or ace not in conioliance
with required abatement actions or, effl-uent limitations.

AnIEPA.official described te systemasnauoae
tidklerl file which'cou~ld easily be expanded to accor"?Modate
other' tasks~ as needed. Re. said the -design wa's based, on
anote syste 'en sdb PA for-the air pollution
-abatement orogram and was chosen because -of low initial and
maintenance- co'ste and simolIicitV of o~eration.

EPA estimated that develodino And. imp:ementing the,
-system, will cost abiout $75,000 and that overatinq and main-i
~tenance costs will total about $75,000-annually if all 10
~regions used it,. :The, data base. for the ioerrncx_ compliance
~svstem was created from linorma~tion stored in the qeneral.
point-source f ile, sytem.

Tihstinq of -the system-.'had been sat~isfactorilv completed,
and four- regional 6fti6es, includinq regions fIIIand VF had
* ~~accepted and were operating the system at~ June 30, 1975,
accordina to an EPA official.. The other six regional offices
had est--blished their own computer or ianualI system although
some regions-.had expressed interest -in usinq the berm~it corn-
* ~nliance system. The EPA official alE, stated that additional
*features~,,such as regional coimmei~ts and description data
about dischargers, would be added to the: system durii~g the
* etyear and this could--influence another three r-eqions
touse if-

,A Li-le showing when -certain actions are due.

COiCLUS~iO'S

-P#A faced a monumental. task in ioro~cessita: and issuina
oermitsto the 33;300 industrial and 19,7I00 -municipal
dischrqersre~uuired- to obitain ner-nits under the ,JP'ES~
permit -nroqrami. SPN, faces an almost immossible task. if it
has to ise Demts. to theiestimated:l.8 mnilliorf animal
feedlots, 1lOpGau storm water discharqejnoint sources, and
indeterminate number of aqrihultural and silvicnuUtural
activities.:
EiAhashadto etain most of the adminitaivwok
load in Processing, issuing$ monitorinq,. and enforcing
oerrnits because it has had limited. helps from the States..
Furtherp, E~PA ex~oerienced p-roblems in establishinq a svsteM-
to iMonitot discharc~ers, co~roiiance with oermit conditions..

RECOMMENDATION TO ThE ADMIaISTRATOR., EPA

We recommend that, to reduce the administrative work-
load on EPk in brocessinq,- issuing, -monitoring, and enforc-
inq. oermits, tihe-Adrainistrotor of EPA

--encoura e States.' ~assunl tion of heNES, oermt
Droqram and

--work with the States to resolve differences between
State laws and'Federal reauirements to facilitate
States' assumingi the oroqram and enforcino EPA-issued
Permits.

AGENCY COM-MENTS

PPA told us on: December 30, 1975F that'it concurred
in our recommendation. (S ee aoo. I.) EPA also ~said that
27 Stateshave nwsumed the NPIDES ner mit oroaram and. that
it 1would continue to invite and. helo othe-r States becom
elia'ble to assuma~ the oroa.-am.

HAT';-ER F'OR CONSIDERATION BY THE SUBCOMMIT-rEE

The Subcommittee May wish to propose amending section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to gIve:
EPA the authority to.exempt certain categorie~s or classes
of dischargers having a minimal adverse impact on water
quality~.

CWATER 3-

- Ii&DUSTRIAL PERM4IT PROGRAM FACES M4AJOR PROBLEMS

-The Conqress intended (.Reot. 92-1236,. Sent. 28, 197-2)
that -each industrials discharger achieve uniform effluent
limitations by July I, 1917, or move stringent requirements
where necessary aa~d treat. the oermits issued under thne L4PDEG
'aroqramr would 'De used for requiring abatement ~actions, for
monitoring nroqrcess, and for taking enforcement action
against violators. Under the Drogram industrial dischargers
* have been and-are makinq.some Proqress to abate-water r'ollu-
tion. However, the industrial aermits is-sued under the~
Prograhi were not, for the most Dart, based on uniform,
effluent limitations as intended by the Conqress,.-and mnany
major oroblems~ need to be overcome before the proqram can
* ft'nction effectively.

Challenges to effluent limitation guidelines and De r it
conditions are c-:isina EPA tiroqram problems. From March
associations filed about- 145 lawsuits~ challenqing 28 of the
-46 effluent, limitation guidelines that had'ben oublished.
EPA advised us that its'staff resoonsible for orep~arinq,
th& guidelines soent over one-half of its time on matters
related to Preparing defenses of technical, iss~ues ivole
in the challenqes. This has been a~ continuinq, severe drain
onjk the time~ staff could soend on Preoating qguidelines.

Nationwide EPA; as Of Sentember 12, 1975, had received
requests for adjudicatorv hearings--a protracted and comalex.
process--f rom~ orivate comnanies for Todif ications to 1, 470
EPA-issue~d *oermits, including 665 major oDermits. Few
requests had gone to -adjudi~catorv hearing although about 200
-major'industria oerm~its ha,, been resolved, and a hearina was
no longer required. Adj'izd'catorv-hearinq reauests for 450
(23 uercent).of the aooro~i-mately 2,000 EPA-issued major
indu-strial Permits were aendinq. Until the' ch~aller.aes are
resol-ved, ab.-~tement akctior. for tho'se ele~en~ts of the oermit
* in disoute 'may be del ayed, and<~ if delaved long enouah, it
MZaV be dif ficult for the di-scharger to meet his u-erm it
* requirements by. July 1,17--the deadline rairdb h
* -1972 aminenm~s

EPA Was al-so exoeriencinq some oroblems in administer ing
the orogram because

--1,756. industrial nermittees in the quarter ended
Auril 30, 1975, had not adhered- to their abatement

schedules or had ~.not submitd reQUi~doors
t-reorts which required action on te rtoEPan

-staff was'used~ orimriV- to ~issue oris fr
fi scal. year I91 'adefr~t nforce oermit
conditions: had- been limited.

PROGRESS. IS BEING MADE -

As of ~June 3W'81 19750, EPA and the States had issued
2 2797 oermits to. mjr- ihdustrial.'discharqr- or8Dercent
of'the 3.138:abplicat~ions~received, and 17,294 ne~rzits to
*mnot industrial disc' r-qersi o r 51 percent of.te3,0
lIcain reeved. As of 'the same daeriol ia
issued 352, 'er-mits to major irndu trial discharqers, or 65
percent of the i544 aoollicatibns -received, and 1 ,444 bermits
tojninor i~ndustrial'.discharqgers, or 36 Oercent of the 3,967
abblications received. Regiont V had'is> 394 nermits to
maj~or dischargers, Cr a4 ber-cent of the ~471 ao)olicatiorns
received, and 4,782 to minor~discharcoers. or 85 Dprcent of
the,5,1657 applications received.

-Discussions with various industries include iour
* - ~~~samvle' 50- industrial oermits show' that progress-is beinq
- ' - ~~'made aEs'oointed o.ut in. the following examoles.

*1. A- o~lp& comoany i.s-sorendingqapproximately $8
- -' ~million to, constructs atreatment Ifac iIi ty capable
'of-handlinq. 24 million qallo'ns a,:day- of'discharqe
:from th r Le of it's-olarits. M6st-of the major con-'
* struction work -is~comaleted, and the facilityj iz,
* ' I exp~~~~xected 'to be ~operational in Miarch 19476. 'This
same 'comoany is ~also starting- construction- on a,
'$4 million secondary ltreatrment faci, ity, for
another .-olant,' which is scheduled to 'be otoera-
tional- before JulvN-1977-. These actions are being
taken becau'se of NPOES oer-mit requirements.

* -. ~~~2. An official of a la r e chemical company told us
- -. -'that Ithd enov $2 mnill~ion on rollution
* ~~~~~~~control dat-iqg .back~ to, before "the NPDES oroqram.
-It is cfirrently constructing a treatment facility -
which is oxoedted to be-completed in 1975.. This
facility is needed to meet its oernmit effluent
-lim-itation. requ-iremnents.

3. Another oaoer comoanv which is currently meeting
its o~rmit effl~uerxt limitation reouirements'is
going to start construction in February 1976 on
a - comolete waste water recycleisystem which is

1.3

exaected to be~ 6-eratioraI by J uv I1977. Accordina
~to at-umnany of ficial, this- s-hould enable it to
meet th 193bs vilable treatment,-reauirements
by,.July 1977.

FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELIOES'.sar
.AVAILABLE OR APPLICABLE

* Bv.July 1. l977.~~-industrial discharqers are to apolv
the best practicable control-technoloqv~currentlv available~
* ~~~as defined by F.PA.in effluent limitation Guidelines. The
exceptions are those cases where State effluent~ limitations
or water quality staiudards are more stringent. TPhe 1972~
amendments required EPA to develoo and oublish by~ October 18,
1973, effluent limitations by cateqory'of industrial dis-
charqers of p ollutan ts. EPA, however, did not oublish the
guidelines for the first. ndustrial cateqory until January
1974 and as ot October 28, 1975, had not established esti-.
mated Publication dates for all remaining industrial
cateqories.

* In our~ report to the Subcommittee oh Environmental
Pollution, Senate Committee on Public Works, entitled
* *tmblemnentation of Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 is Slow' (3 i66506, December 2Q., 1974),
'we stated that delayed nublicatioio te gieie i o
* seriously affect the number of industrial oermits issued.
When final guidelines were not available, Der-mits were
issued on the basis of itrmquidanceZ and/or individual
Rassessments of the iDermit aoiolican'tsl discharges. Permits
issued in this manner, however, do not insure uniformity of
effluent limitations by industrial cateqory as intended by
~the Congress.

*lAccordinq to EPA, this is technology that takes into
account such fact6rs as age of eqruiument. facilities
- ,. ~~involved, brocess emnloved and; nrocess chanaes, enqineer~ng
asoects of. contc-ol techniques, environmental imoact anart
'from water quality includina energy r quirements. and the
balance between tot~al cost and effluent reduaction benefits.,

2PA had develoned interim effluent instructions which were
apolicable. to majo~r dischargers in 21 industriLal cateqories
*and -had det-ermined tnat ocermits could be issued on the,
basis ofthe interim instructions if the instructioswr
thorough enough to insure that nermits would not he
inconsistent with limitations subsequently issued.

* ~~Th e Conoress, intend-ad that EPA ~establish uniform
effluent~ limitations forirdsra di argers by cateoaorv
* or class~ to in'sure that similar' disc~iargers, with similar
characteristics, reqardless of their -location or the ncature
of -the water'' into, which the discharce is made, will meet
*similar effluzent limitations. The excep)tion is those cases
in; which~ Stat~e effluent limitati as or watet auality
*standards are more stringent.

In. our sarnole of 5U permnits covering 2.63 pollutants,
limitation's-for 95 pollutants were based on State-imoosed
* ef fluent~ imitations or water quality standards and 11 were,
based on final effluent limitatic-.. quide lines. Limitations
for the remaininq 157 pollutants were orio based on final
effluent limitation guidelines becauise the guidelines were:
not oromulgated at the time the Perrnits were fssued or, if
-oromulqated,'were not applicable to the type of Drocess Ithe
*cpmpany used.

As a results EPA and the States had to neqotia-te~
effluent limitations with discharqers on the ~Folljw'nqbs.

Number of
pollutants

EPA-proposed guidelines ~21
- EPA~ interim guidance * 72
EPA national policy Pronouncements8
Reczional; off ice standards and best
* Professional judgment 51
Permittee's ability-to meet more
stringent. limitations 5

Total. 157

Permits issued on, the above bases. may~ contain effluent
limitations~more or less~ stringent than best practicable
* ~~~~~controls technology as def ined in EPA'sf Inal guidel ines.

For: example, -3 of the permit's included in our review
* ~~~~containe effluent limitations for -14 pollutants that were
more restrictive than those required by the final guide-
lins. Two of the three discbharqers lanpealed their permnit
conditions and asked that tha effluent limitations be
based on Ehe f inal quidelinas. One of Lhe.two dischargt-rs,
a major, oil. -company, *was issued a 5-year permit based on;
Drooosed effluent limitation guidelines. for the vetr~oleim
voint-sourc6 category in may 15744 In Jun~e 1974, the
dischargerr apoealed the effluent limitations inthe pOermit
becusefinal quidelines, published. 6 days after i--tance
of the oermit, contained less stringent limitatieons.

: ubsequently, amendments to the final guidelines, which
for the! most Dart were less stringent as aDolied to this
comDany, were oDrczosed in October 19714 and oromulgated -in
May- 1975.: EPA, the State, and the discharqer aqreed to
modify the permit- the bais' of .the effluent limitations
contained in the proposed amendments of October 1974.
-(See app. II, D. 48.)

'_. :: - -W gfEPA's oolicv was to not 'automatically modify oer mits
that were issued before effluent limitation quidelines were
promulgated. EPA officials told us that .it ooDosed modi-
fving, :on' a regular basis, nermits issued before final
effluent limitation quidelines had been Dromulgated because -
industrial dischargers would not proceed with implementina
permit conditions under the: threat of changing requirements I
and direction. -EPA, in comm enting on our reDoot to the
-Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, stated that
in-most cases'such permits contained effluent limitations
.- either equivalent to or more stringent than those orescribed
in the final guidelines. i
0 i: : - . EPA concentrated- on developing effluent limitation
guidelines for the 2:7 industrial categories identified in
section 306 of the act-as the worst sources- of water Dollu-
tion. To cover. the industries with the most extreme oollu-.
- tion problems first, EPA decided to issue guidelines for the
- 27 industrial categories in two phases--30 subcategories to i
be-covered in the first :hase and 21 in the second. EPA
then planned to develoo.quidelines for additional
industrial categories. All. first-phase quidelines had been
promulgated by October 197.4.

During the period from January 3, 1975, to October 28,-
1975, EPA. published 16 second-phase guidelines; however, 5
were Published as interim guidelines without the benefit
of prior public proposal.or formal comment period. Also,
EPA had published six guidelines, includinec three irnerim
:guidelines, for :tne 'additional industrial-cateaorles.

EPA expected to publish 13 other interim quidelines--
second-Phase categories and 10 additional industrial -
- categories--by December 1975. It set target dates,
extending to the latter part of 1976, for the: ublication
of final guidelines to replace the interim guidelines for
the 11 second-Phase categories and for 6 of the 13
additional industrial categories.

EPA had not established target dates for (1). the
uDblication of either interim or final guidelines for the
two remaining second-phase categories and nine remaining

;!'i:ff:-: 1:f ::: : ::X - ,I - ; - ; : , :. - f:f16

.: .- - ; ' - ; - :

additional cateqories or (2) the reolacement of the seven
remainilnr interim guidelines with final guidelines.

EPA has attributed Droblems i.n develooinqi the
second-ohase guidelines and guidelines for additional
industrial categories to

--a continued shortage of aualified personnel,

- --difficulties in obtaining adequate information on the
industrial categories,

--time consumed- in defending challenges to published
guidelines,

-the need to correct deficiencies and revise some
:.ublished qguidelines, and

--the .1eed to strengthen the data base for guideline
limitations and reexamine second-phase. guidelines
late in the orocess of development as a result of
the challenges.

Effluent iimitation guidelines
not applicable

In ouri samole of 50 permits. proposed or final effluent
~ ~-:-::limitatilon quidelines which were available could not be
iapplied to 13 oermits because the quidelines were not
- anolicable to the particular product manufactured, or the
: type of industrial process used by the comDany. For
example, for four permits issued in-Wisconsin to paper mills,
- the limitations were based on EPA interim qguidance and State
.regulations because the Rpaer mills covered by these permits
produced different products or used differ.ent.orocesses than
those covered in the oroPosed or final guidelines.

Wisconsin officials told us that final EPA guidelines
issued for' this category azplied to only 4 of the
aDoroximatelY 50 oaper mills �in the State.

'Toxic effluent standards

* :X0 I:: �1In addition to requiring EPA to publish effluent limi-
tations guidelines, the 1972 amendments required EPA to
publish a list: of toxic substances by January 18, 1973, and
to 'DroPose toxic effluent standards by July 18, 1973. Final
standards were' to be oublished as soon as Dossible after a
public hearing on the proDosed toxic standards unless a
modification of: the oroDosed standard was justified on the
� basis of evidence oresented at the hearing..

EPA. -robos~ed ef f[luent standards for nrine toxic
,substances in-December 1313,.:but t~hev'we.re not Published a s
final ~standards :becae th oiclmits could not be
adequately siaoported. -An EPA official told us that EPA had
been develoainq toxic~ limits on the 'oasis ~of an' exoanded
daita base and was considering the technical achievabilitv
and economic im ]act - f. tox ic~ standards. The EPA official
szaid revi sed& effluent, -standards would~ be Drooosed beciinnitIq
December 97adfil ublication of toxic''f fluent
standards� was 'expected in the latter, rart of 19.76-

EFFLUENT LIMIT~ATION GU~IDELINES CHALLENGED

From March 1974 to June 30, 1975,'industrial dis-
chargers and trade associations-had .filed about 145 lawsuits
* . ~chalegg the validitv of EPA's' effluet litioh quide-
lines'. Thesze lawsuits covered 28 of the .46 effluent limita-
* tion guidelines that had be en p~ublished. An'additional 90
lawsuits' had b~een filed challenqinq'Cerformance and
Pretreatment standards for new Doift-sourcel discharaes..
Altho~h nmeros inividual lawsuits *h6-d been filed,
almost 6ll challenqes against effluent limitation guidelines
* and now source .oerf zariance- standards.- hard been consolidated.
by industrial catf~qorv or~s~bcateqorv-so, that', With few
~exceptions', o'nlV- one case. oejr cateqorv or subcategory would
be~ tried in the U.S. courts-of anpeals. ..

Major arqpfflents raised by Det'itioners in the suits
included:
--The. U.S. courtszof aDIoeals did~ not have jurisdictior.
to di_-ectly review -the qjideline fo xsi latser
and lawsuits fat each individual challenge should
originate in th6.U~.S. district. courts undier t~he
*Adminlistrativ'e Procedure.Act Li US.C.. 701, etsea. .

--A raT.,qe of "imitation values f~or ai 6ollutant should
be used in the quidelines rather -than~ a sinqle va.,lie
as~ a .firm standard.

n~rew tocint- source is a nollut~ant discharoina facility
whose construction is'started after the publication of
arooosed oesrformance'standards for controll inq -ocilutants
which will be ao-olicable to that source. Th tnadis
to reflect the -qreate'st degree of effluent reduction*.
'ac ievbe cars'h the a-ooiication of" best: avaiae

demonstrated technoloqv.

--EPA used inaoorooriate methodoloqv and inadeouate
data bases which resulted in unreasonable effluent
limitation quidelines. : :

--The cost of reauired techholoav was not adeouatelv
considered.

As. of June 30, 1975, 4. cases involving minor issues.
accordi:ng to EPA, had been settled out of court"in favor of
the discharQers, 7 had been tried with i Court decision
renlered against EPA, 1 case was dismissed, and 26 were
pendinq.. Also 10 cases challenainr oretreatment standards
for new sources had been staved oendinc oromulqation of
oretreatment standards for existing sources.

The first court decision was -rendered on M'a 5, 1975,
by the U.S. Court of AoDeals for the Eighth Circuit (Nos.
74-1447, 74-1448. and 74-1449) on. a case relating to EPA
; regulations for the "Corn Wet Milling Subcateqorv" of the
4Grain Mills Point Source Category.' The court ruled that:

: --It could not directly review the guidelines for
existing olants and accordinqly dismissed the
oetitions with respect to them; however, they are
reviewable in the U.S. district. courts.

--Sufficient doubt was ^ast on the achievabilitv of
standards for new sources to cause the court to reject
these standards. .The court instructed EPA to either
furnish suDoort for the new scurce standards orevi-
ousl opublished or establish new ones which can be
achieved with the best available demonstrated
technoloqy. The court also instructed EPA to deveioo
:adequate projected ca3ital and ooeratinq costs for.
imolementingr the standards.-

--The-pretreatment standards for new ooint sources are
too vaque and uncertain. The court- remanded these
standards forEPA.'s reconsideration and amendment.

Imoact of litiqation

EPA has stated that the challenqes of the ouidelines
have been:a continuino, severe drain on-the time of the
DersonneL involved in cte oreoaration of quidelines. The
Director of EPAs Effluernt Guidelines Division estimated
that for several months, more than one-half of his staff's
time had been spent on matters related to the Dreoaration
of defenses of technical issues involved in the chalilenges.

-he cba~llenqes have al so caused E i'-i to strenqthen the
data' 'ba se for some Quidelines and reexamine -draft quidelires~
late in the zrocess of develooment and have delayed the
-issulance 'of additional qnidelines-. .
EPA officials believe that re(uuari-ia challenges tc be
tried-in. the U.S. district courts a-Ld the guidelines to
include a ranqe Of effluent limitations, for Pollutants
would adversely affect, the oer'nit orocgram and the likelihood
of meetind ~water. xual it-,- dca s becau sec:

.--Recquirinq U.S. district courts !_o try a large number
of individual guideline challe-naes would. increase the
Government's workload in defending the individual
lawsuits and would slow the final decisions on
challeniqes and any required oermit revisions.

--Requiring a range of effluent limitations be estab-
lished for onollutants would r~esult in time-consumino
revisions of many quideliiies anld oressure by indus-
trial discharqers for the incorporation of the least
-stringent limitations, in their nermits which would
slow p>Ollution abasement and could 'reduce water
crual itv.

An EPA official said, with -resiaect to the challencges
of *EPA quideline develonment methodolo-qv' th~at no technical
quidelines or standards could *be developed without some
challenqes. ~Although the'se challenges will result in EPA.
having to ~revise some guidelines and permits, they will have
Only a minimal lonq-termiimpact on-water qdality.

.EPA Dolicv c alls for limitirq Tneraidit revisions follow-.
ing successful~chailencues' of effluent guidelines. In ~a
December 1974 memorandum, the EPA Assistant Aidministr~ator
for-Enforcement'and General Counsel advised, the, rectioral
administrators that they may arant a dischar.crer-~s recruest
for Dermpit revision if,' followinq'oromulcaation of a
court~modified effluent quideline,.the discharqer can
derndnstrate.' that it' has oermit reauirements based on
effluent quideline rrequirements subsenuent-1v Modified bv
court order. The Assistant. Administrato emohasized ta
this oermit revision uolidy did not aoolv to oermit
*effluent' limitations based on'effluent quidance considera-
tions, Orooosed effluent iuideline~s. water oualitv starldaris,
or any other .ceouiitements-other than a cromul--atled effluent.
guideline -

CHALLEAGES TO-PERMIT COU~DITI1ONS-~

-EPA faces -di ff icult nroblemis in resolvingq challenqes
to permit conditions--especially challenqes-by mao
discharqers. Nationwide, EPA -as of September 12, 1975,
had, receive adjudicat~ory hear inq rqet.f-o rvt
companies for .modific-~tions to 1,470 EPIA-issued discharqe
Permits-6563majot uerm-its and 805 minor .oermits;.. Adjudi-
catory hearing requests from municipalities totaled 151.1
* A~~'S- of-Sentember -12, 1975, 233 oeIfuit6 had 1)eell settled
ofwhi.Th about 30, according toan EPA official, h-ad. gone
through the. adjudicatory hearing brocess which was oro-
tracted and comolex. EPA headquarters did not comoile
-data on challenges. to State-issued oermits.

* EPA denied the adjudicatory. hearinq requests of 106
of the -665,-major~ industri al Dermittees and wsettled the
requests of 109. *Adjudicatcry- hearinq requests of about
45 major industrial permittees, or- 23 percent of the 2,000
EPA-ilssued -major- industrial Dermaits, were pendin at
September ~12, 19-15. Until- the -challenqes are resolved,
* . . ~E-pA cannot:' enforce- the contested permit conditions. There-
fore, abatement aiction on contesfed oermit conditions may
* b3.dla~ed. and if delaved l~)nq enough- 'it mnay be difficult
for the discharger -'to meet his' oermit conditions by July I,
- 1977--the~deadline 'required. by- the 1972 amendments.-

Headqtiarters officials told us that althoug'h EPA'had
- - - - - -not'tabulated the'-issu'es- involved or 'the frequency of the
issues, -nustrial dischargers are challenging Dermit.
conditions because- -
--the- final effluent'.1im'iato qudelinedino

ap ly to- their plant:, -

--nermit conditions were unreasonable,

--oermit litiftations -based on State-irloosed standards
-were unreal istic~ and could no t be achieved, and
--State thermal 'effluent limitations for steam
elnctriz-vower-qeneratinq plants were more stringent
than EPA effluent limitations.

For example, of 335 maior discharger~s in the electric
powerrplant catego~ry,, lll--33 cercent--had requested -
adjudicatory h-a inqs as of August 1, 1975. In- adition,
22 minoridischarqers had- requested hear ings. EPA
officials -told us -that bonut 60 of these olants were-
challenging thermal limitations based on State water quality
-standards contained 'in their- oermits.

21 -

An additiona". 245 major and mino
electric-ipower-qepleratina -olarnts, haad reaueste'd either time
foDr making thermyal discharqe studies or less stringent
thermal- limitations oursuant to section.316a of the act.
S~ection-3,16a authorized EPA or-the States-to jimoose lessI
string0ent limitations -if the o la'nts' cou-ld demonstrate that~
their thermal ef fluents 'would not. ha'rm aauatic life.

T Review of challenqes in the regions

in the 2 EPA. reqioris (III and V~) included in'our review,
about 270 of 814 major industrial dischargers, or 33 cercent,
requested adjudicatory hearings before their~ nermits were
fin-alized or after they were issued. These dischargers are
ranked monq the Nation's largest firms and account for a~
* larqe oortion of the water *pollution in the reqions, which
increases the need to resolve these challenges in a timely,
manner.

Region V.,

In reqion we 'identified 168 major industrial dis
* - ~~chat'gers who h ad requested a~ review of their, EPA or.
* ~~State-issued pDermit throuqh the hLaring proc ess.
Total Major Adjudicatory hearings
* ~~State dischargers Requested Percent

* Illinois 83 3 43
* Indiana 5.6 .-3 61,
Mich ig an x,126, 3 2~
Minnesota (note AV 32: 16 50
Ohio (no ts, a) . 109 .53 49
Wisconsin 265 426
* Total ~~~~~~~471 18. 36.-

aln Minniesota :and Ohior adjudicatory. hearinqs are requested
* be f ore aerrnits are issu'ed. Therefore, no oart of-the
* . n~~ermit is effective~ until ftrthe heatrincx is resolved.
As Of March 1975).many 0of these cases were still
pend 1. -q some of the hearings aave~~~~ been scheduled f or a s1
late As November 1975 and if somie of hs oone take
their aooteals throuah, the court svstem, the delays could i
be considerably longe.

In out samole of 30 ;industrial oerrnits in. Illinois and
Wisconsin, 11 oermittees had, reauested an adiudicatorv
hearinq. Three of these requests were resolved before

''. . , . -- . . :; 0;00;00 i:#Xt~d :t:::ff:0::::::0:00:00 :0:: f: f;:f:0::X40:i:0\0|XX t:00:- ::; .0::::::00:; t; f0::00:0::: f:: ::: f; :0: :::
reaching the hearinq staqe, one-was denied, and seven were
still pending. All but one of these requests were from
major dischargers and were for a-variety of reasons. For
example:

--A Paper mill challenged the effluent limitations.
monitoring requirements, and EPA's definition of
best practicabl.e treatment.

--A power-com.any challenged chlorine'limits, the
- chlorination procedure, and the schedule of
compliance for chlorine reduction.

Our sample included two permits that were being aDDnealed
because Illinois and EPA effluent limitations were included
in the same permit. Illinois water pollution control regula-
tions are generally stricter than EPA final effluent
limitation. gquidelines and are based on 'concentration limits.
EPA's limits' are based on weight.

In these cases the discharger must meet the more
stringent limitation. .For example, one company had a daily
average BON51 limit of-20 milligrams a liter based on State
regulations and 2,520 pounds of BOD a day based on EPA
guidelines. The State concentration limit converts to 667
pounds a day, on the basis of. the discharg.er's. expected
flow of. 4. million gallons a day which is 3.8 times more
restrictive than best practicable treatment requirements.
The-limit becomes even more restrictive if the company
practices water conservation and reduces its flow. For
.example, if the company reduces its water consumption to 3
million gallons a day, the -State. standards become 5 times
.more restrictive than best practicable treatment. (See
. app. Ii, p. 53.)

Region- IiI

In region III' 174 industrial.nermits were appealed
as of April 30, 1975, including 102 mrajor industrial dis-
chargers, or '31 ercent of the 331 major pe-rmits EPA
issued. EPA issued most of the permits in reqion III.
The following.table summarizes the appeals by major
industri'al dischargers by State.

1See aDD. IV.

Total, w Adjudic-i to rv
major oerniits. heari nqs
State (Ek'A issuad) requested P~ercent

t?ennsylvania .122 59 ~ 48
m4arvland 2-6 1 4
Delaware 7 ~2 29
~Virqi~nia .88 12 14
Wet Vi'rqinia 28 3
. iwashington,i D.C. uu-

TC,_ al .331 102 31

Of the~ 174 industrial permits aolpealed as of Aoril 300
1975, 32 have been settled; 23 were closed, 'withdrawn, or
denied; and. 9 were resolved without a-'formal hearinq. At
the- time of; our review in Jue.97no oeals had reached
*the level of an ~adjudicatory hearing. Reqion III has
experenceddelays in' resolving requests forajdctr
hearinqs. Some of the delays.. were inherent -in the amount
of -Danerwork involved in reviewinq the basis of -the oermait
and the issues of: the apoeal. -

In gxir sam ule~ of 20 industr iial 6e r ini . in Pennsylvania
and.,Delaware, 4 permittees had requested Can adjudicatory
hearina. Ba-si~callvythree of-.-the.bermitt~ees were reauestinq
* at- t their -Permits'be based on f inal effluent guidelines
rather-than on interim. or oropbs'ed quidelines which were -
* more strinqdnt. In- one case the oe~rmittec' was c~~eqn
the St~te-imiposed bffluentf limits. Reqio~n III :off icials.
believe that three requests. can be settled without a
.formal hearinq; however, the region has directed the
* . Permittee challengrinq State-imo0osed limitations to resolve .

At our reust recgion. III officials orov ided us with
*..two xamples in which major industrial dischargers
resnonsible: for most of the ooll'ut-ion in .a river seqment--
the Kanawha~ River, Wett. Virqinia, and. the MonionqahelIa
River, .P~ennsvlvania--au-,ealed their effluent limitations
* ~~~~that were based ofl watec.~qualitly standards. Abate-ment
actions will be 'unlikely until the-aooeals are resolved.

Tht~ Kaniawha River--Seven major chemical 13lants and
~one manor mnici~a fCilitv, 'which treats mostly cheia
comoany wastes, located alonq-. a 32-mile siefnent of. the
river a~oealed their 'De rm's . Threc, of the seven slants
* were ooerated by one corporation and two were ooerated~ by
another corooration. Accoriinq to a-reqion III 'off icial,
discharges ~ftom these seven plants accounted for 30 to 90
percent of the pollution load in thcht portion ~of the -river.

- ~~~~24.

EaCh'discharqer had joined in the other discharqers'
aoneals, and there were numerous asoects of each permit
U-: being-challenqed or questioned' . One of the aopeals con-
*._5 :tained 32 issues. However, all these. discharqers .asoealed
: the::limit on the amount of oxvqen-demanding wastes they
would be allowed to dischare by. Julv -1, 1977, and that
I:was the-major onoint of contention according to.reqion III
'officials .

-: . According to EPA', the flow of the Kanawha is inter-
ruDted by a series of dams, the river� is sluqqish, and a low
* level of dissolved oxygen is the major problem.

Reaion: II officials set the effluent limitations for
oxyqen-demanding wastes on the basis of a waste load allo-
cation model1 developed-by EPA. The 'chemical olants were
:::required to achieve by July 1, 1977, a level of treatment
between best oracticable treatment and treatment based on
best available technologyq which is not required until
July: 1, 1983.

EPA officials also told us that the chemical plants
fhave made progress over the past several years -in cleaning
up their discharges. In accordance with an ar:eement with
.4 - ;the State, a: three-ohase abatement program had been started
before 1960. At the time of their. aopeals, the discharqers
: were providing a level of treatment that: is above the
secondarv leel, 85 percent remova. of EOD. But on the
:basis of its model, EPA concluded that the levels were not
adequate to meet water cuality standards for the Kanawha.
The discharqers, however, are challenging the validity of
the EPA model, and region III officials believe their
:- :;:apoeals will not be resolved without an adjudica-ory
hearing.

The Monongahela River--Six, major steel olants along a
40-mile stretch of the river have been granted their
requests for an adjudicatorv hearing on their permits.
Focr of the six olants are Dart of one corporation-whose
apoeals for the four clants contain 376 issues including
the legality of the regulations under which EPA issued
their Permits. Resion IlI told us that most of the
pollution load on that part of the river comes from the six
steel plants.

*1A model that determines the deqree of effluent limitations
* from uoint sources needed tc achieve water Qualitv
standards.

. Accordinq mtO region OfII oficials, comoounds in the
steel plants' discharges, such an cyanide and phenol, are
the specific items of major concern to the State and EPA.
The : river is a source0 of public drinking water, and high
phenol: conentrations, particularly during the winter,
-cause taste and odor problemss. The phenol limits, which
five of the six dischargers were challenglnqi were set by
. the State. On the basis of a model, the State allocated
to each discharqer the number of bounds of phenol. each plant
could discharge. EPA's guidelines.for best practicable
treatment were considered adequate for oxyqen-demandinq
wastes, and no more restrictive limits were set for them.
Pennsylvania water pollution control: agency officials
i: told us in November 1975 that two of the six plants were
making some progress towards abatingDollution but four
� plants, which:are part of one corooration, would not take
- any important abatement actions until all the numerous
issues are resolved. 'The officials also said that State
hearings on the appeals are expected to be held in March
'1976 but it- will. probably take 4 or 5-years before the
appeals .are finally settled.

PROBLEMS IN MONITORING AND ENFORCING
PERMIT CONDITIONS

Noncompliance with abatement schedules, effluent
J limitations, and- reporting reauirements may be widespread.
As.July-l, 1977, comes closer, EPA-will need to ive
- priority attention to monitoring compliance with permit
-conditions to take enforcement actions against violators.
In fiscal year 1976 program emphasis will be on insurinq
0;. :that: a high percentage of major dischargers are in com-
-: .oliance with Dermit con'ditions. It is too early to tell
. 'whether EPA. and State enforcement actions will be effective.

NoncomDliance with abatement schedules
or .reporting requirements

EPA and State reports for Novemtbe r 1, 1974, throuqh
January. 31, 1975, showed that .1,492 of the 15,068 industrial
Dermittees had not adhered to their compliance'schedules or
had not submitted required orogress reports. The reports
- compare the number of Dermits not in compliance to the.
.' number of Dermits issued.: The oercentaqe of non'complyinq
Dermits is about 10 percent. However, this is misleading.
Many dischargers may not have a compIiance schedule or a
compliance act-ion may- not have been due during that period,
and therefore the instances of noncompliance are not
related to the proper total. The number of permits not in
compliance should be related to the number of permits for

26
k :- : .; . 7 X~ ~~~~~I

wh.h a cmnrl iace s~ch~ed lu acIo wasau d the
renorinoeiod.Flor exam le. -77 oermits,'~ or 11 nercn
f the Oer-mits iTssued in region .Ill~, were not -jn come liance.
This' reoresented, hoeer 49 ;~ercent of th& 6 erm
for which a com;liance action.'was due in -the reoortinq
-veriod. In- view :of the number of dis~charqers in region
III,- this could be an..extremelv difficult oroblem.

Wea-were unable to 'make the same comoarisori for reqionV~
because similar data' was: rnot available.

Nonconmliance with effl-uent limitation
or reporting requiremenits

For the 53industrial ryermits- in our sample, 45 were
required- to submit ~a.discharqe monitorinq reoort during the
* oeriod ~of review. We. found that 6: of the 45 did not submit
their repots,. and of the-39 wh i~te eoor ts for 2-
showed that effluent limitations had been exceeded. The
report for-one was incoznnlete. .

- Reqio~ns III arid V had limited orocedures *to 'monitor
comoliance. with ef fluent' limitations and as-.a result did not-
have da~ta~ on the total. extent of. noncoymniance with efflae.-t-
lim'itation~requirerrnents. We ~believe'tb~at noncompliance may~
*be widesp~read,, because even <'with its li ited mronitorinq
ji system, reg ion III data as -of. June 6,- 1975, showed. that
effluent limitations were exceeded by 296. indust~rial dis-
Charqe-rs aknd. anothier .69 dischargers ~failed to ~submit a
monitor ing repor-t As of May 31 , .1975, 1.804 industrial
permits had been issued within region 1II.

'Enforcement

The4 1972 aniendm rits 'which require that-dischargers.
*obtain rPermits with. speci'fic effluent iiatosandoovd
- . . ~~for severe civil and criminal oenalties for.violations of
-Iermit conditions, strengthened EPA's C~pability for enforc-
ing aoluin control..: Unerheati effect before the
1972 aendmens, EP-could take enf orcernent aetin -only we
water, oolliitiot. had occbrred; '..hat~ is, 'when -adischarge had
endangered health aridd welf'are or had' lowered the qualit of'
the water. ,Even ~with te'sting it wasidifficult to --elate a
chanqe in water-quality. to a snecific municipals or -industrial
discharge.

Unde~r thc' 1912 amendments, EPA or; the States are~
authorized to~establish specific effluent limtations'an,0
abatement, actions in NFDES Tnermits that industrial dis-
charqers robot ach~ieve within a certain time fErame. The
oermit, in effect, is an. enforceable contract between the

Government~ and: them cor~anv. Under this systern, enforcement
is easier~ because a failure to meent the established
restictinsrather than showiino'that a oolluter's discharze:
caused a violation o~f water quality standards,: is. sufficient
round~s to start enforc~ement .oroceedinqs.

Althouqh EPA~s primar y objective durinq fiscal vears
1973-75 was to issue NPDES ipermits, Droqram etnhas~is ha s
changed and' the' orimary objective 'in fiscal year 1976~ is to
insure t-hat a high uercentaqe of 3majo.- dischargecs are in
compliance with abatement s6,1edules and final efflient
limitations.~ In September 1975 EPA headquarters officials
told us that limited emohasis would be olaced on enforcinq
interim effluentllinitations which usually restrict the
discharger to what it was discharqinq at the time the nermit
* ~~~was issued.

F'rom Jan-uary Is 1973, throuqh. June 30, 1975. EPA iSSued
about 545.administrative, orders to industrial .discharqers.
and referred about .85 cases to the Department of Justice for
civil or, crimain~al actions. For 'the 6-nonth oeriod January
throuoh June 1975, EPA issued about~170 administrative
orders and referred about 50. cases to the Department of
Justice.~ EPA or the S~tates issue to Violators of Dermit
conditions administrative orders requirinq como~liance.

if the discharger fails to comoly, then the case call
be, referred to the.Denartment of Justice for. civil action.
The law also orovides for criminal pDenalties 'for willful or
negliqent violations. EPIA 'told us that. data was hot avail-
able whch would show what the States had done concerning
enforcement actions oft State-issued *oermits.
Wqisconsin, one cf theStates covered in our review,
to3k over the oermit program in Februarv'1974 and had
statistics available as of Fe.'ruary 197-5 which' showed' t2
industrial aermittees withn 133 Permit- violations, - hich
.33 were related to abatement schedules. The Febr L973
* . ~~reoort showed that the State had initiated enforc-,
actions for only 13 of wthe 33 violations- 7 notices of
noncomp~liance and 6 referrals to the tt tonygnrl
The violations referred were all For one conoany and:
incl1u ded:

--failure to Comolete -final means, due December~ 31,
19 73;

--failure to be,4in const-cuction, dueMarch 31, 1974;

-failur eto comnlete construction, due Seotember 30,
1974; and

' ' ' --failure to attain operational level, due SeDtember 30.
19 74.

' : This case.was referred to the State attorney general in
December 1974. Wisconsin officials-said �that the case was.
settled in ADril 1975--the company was fined'-$8,000; the
comDanv closed the plant, and the oermit was rescinded. In
November 1975 Wisconsin officials also told us that 15
cases--including 3 municipal cases--had been referred to the
State attorney aeneral because of Dermit violations. Six
cases had :been closed, and in five cases fines were levied
ranging from $5,000 to ::17,50G.

In our sample of 50 industrial dischargers, 22 dis-
chargers were not in comrliance -ith their abatement
schedules. Adjudicatory hearings or Dermit modifications
* relative to the abatement schedules were pendina for 11
permittees. . As of ADril 1975 EPA or the States had initiated
enforcement actions in S of the remaininq 11 cases.

Since January 1975 the emphasis of the program in region
III has been to enforce compliance with abatement schedules
of major dischargers. -A procedure was implemented to review
discharqe .menitorinq reports to determine compliance with
-:effluent limitations, but according to regional office
officials,; enforcing this aspect of the. Dermit had a low
- prior ity.

Region III will not consider enforcement actions unless
a-: significant violation of effluent limitations has occurred,;
such as the discharge of toxic wastes. Region III policy is
that before legal. action is considered the following deter-'
minations must be made: (1) the-effluent limitation violated
is considered reasonable, (2) the sampling technique must be
reliable, and (31 the violation harms the environment.
'--Also, the historvyof-the discharger's :erformance ana his
attitude will be considered.

CONCLUSIONS.

Progress is beinq made. by industrial dischargers to
; abate water pollution. EPA, however, is experiencinq
problems which will hinder efforts to fully achieve the
requirements. of the 1972 amendments. The. Problems included:

--Effluent dischare 'limitations in oermits were, for
the most Dart, not based orn.final quidelines setting
forth uniform effluent limitations- for industrial
dischargers 'by category or class as intended by the
Congress. The cuidelines were not Dublished in time
to be used or were not anDlicable.

--Lawsuits .challenging effluent linlitation quidelines
have reuire E saf time to nreaare-defen:3es of
technical issues, takinq 'away tiype staff could spend
on:prebarinq quidelines, and-may adverse--V affect
the D 0ermit program and~ the. likelihood of achiev incn
water aualitv qoals ~if -some of the' challenges are
successful.

--Many .industr~ial discharqers have asked for- adjudi-
catorv ~hearings, 'a iorotracte-d and comalex. rtrocess,
seeking modification of'rermit conditions. Few
requests have gone to a ernDrocessaduni
thev are resolved, abatement actions for thos
elements in disl~ute may be delayed, and if delayed
lon4g enouqh, it may be. difficult for the discharger
to meet his. bermit conditions by July 1, 1977, the
deadline required by the 1972-aimendments.

--Some, industrial discharqers..were not' adhering to~
*their abateraierit schedules, effluent limitations, or
~~4 ~~reoortinq reauirements.

In certaia selected cases~ EPA may n e ed-legislative
authority togrant deadin extensions sothtiusra
discharqers wh os e ne r miIt conditions ha'le not been finalized
Pendinq the, outcome-of adjudicat:--y hearings can co~molv~
with the new recuirements. Unless reasonable time is
granted to dilscharqers, to construct facilities, or chance
Processes to achieve modified effluen limitations as a~
result of. adjudicatoryv hearings, enforceme nt of the limita- ..
tions may be difficult.
The 191.72 amendments orovide ~for a~strono enforcement
Xoroqram. It is too early to tell whether EP-AL -and the
Stfites Will- b~e effective, in enforcing comnliance with permit
conditions.

MATTER FOR CO- IDRATI O2 BY THE SIJBCOKM4ITT EE

The Suibcommitte-e ~nav. wish to oroojose amendi=h section
.301(b)(1) of the ?edelral Water Pollution Control AC' to:
orovide that -PA may extend on a case--by-case basis t-he
*July -1, 19/77 recuirernent that indust'rial dischargers
achieve permit effluent limitations where oermit conditions
cannot be met by the deadline after challenges to oermit
conditions Thave been r -.olved.

CHAPTER, 4

PER141?'PROGRAM WT LL NOT INSURE MFJ:&.LICIPALITIES
COMPLIANCE WITHWATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

Almost all permits -a-sued to municipalities ~will have
to be' reissued or modified and will rnot in themselves
*contribute to~ meetinq the 1977 water, cualitv requirements.
-The availability of Federal construction grant funds--not
permits--.is. the Princioal factor in gettinq municipalities
to construct or upqrade waste water treatment facilities
to abat e oollution, EPA reqional off ice,. estimated that, 56
oercent. of-16,700 municipal dischargers nationwide will not
achieve- required treatment levels by July 1, 1977. EPA has
recommended theat the July 1, 1977, deadline be extende~d on
a case-by-case basis.

Federal ~dn of municipal waste water treatment
L ~~facilities had proceeded. at a slow oace--only ~~6.6 billion
of th S18billon mad~e available by th-onqress to
fina'nce 75. eercent of -the construction costs for fiscal,
years 1973-75 had been obligated cas of June 30, 1975, and'
Only ~$1 -blillion soent. Further,1 estimated funds needed
by-municipali-ties to construct facilit-ies--$342.billion---
far :exceed funds authorized .hy the 1972 amendments.

- In~our December 20,~ 1914,~reoort to the Senate
Subcommittee on Enviropnmental Pollution, we stated that the
slow pace in which ~EPA had been awarding grants was caused.-
primarily'.by new and chanqinq requirements in EPA's regula-
tions implementing legislative provisions for awarding con-'
sftrution. qrant-s. However, in an October .24, 1975, report
- -to -the Chairmen of six cognizant conqressionllqiltv
and avoroor-iations comm ttes, we stated that one major
*.concern-was that EPA's'limited resources should riot be
directed toward awardinq grants as. fast as oossible with
-. lttleor- fo at tent ior. bein aiven to whethIer~ treatment
facilities. are constructed-efficiently and -at least cost.
-EPA estimated that'almost all munici al permit wil
need to -be reexamined and either reissued or modified. in
fiscal yeat',l!77 becamse

--many -municipalities were issued short-term oermits
exoirinii before July I, 1977, because they could
not mteet the deadline-

--zoermit abatement schedules will have to be tied into-
the availabilitv of Federal.f-unds and reasonable
Rconstruction timetables; and

--permits MAyV have to be modified to re-lect oronosed
change it he def inition -of'secondarv treatmet n
ormulqat~ion or pretreatment reauiremnents whic'i. the
act required EPA to Dubl ish by. June 19732 -for indus--
tr ial: co'mra nies discharcdino into municir~al ~waste
Kater treatment plants.

-our rev'iew of.6 of'the 120 piermits included in our
sa~mole showed that .15 muhiciualities.had failed to comvly
-with abatement actions and 16 flad *exceejed tneir effluent
limitations. EPA~ and the~ States had taken some action to
follow ap on the noncompliarce by municiaolitieF. (See
aix). III for e xa m-les.)4

The municipal oermit z)roaramhis of limited benefit as
~an enforcement tool, beca-zuse EPA and the States do not nlan
to. take-enforcemen agtosaainst municio,~litiewicar
unable to achieve required treatment levels''by the July
1977.deadline because of a lack'.of Federal funding.

PROGRESS IS BEING IMADE

Our: samole 'of 120 muiiicipal oe~rrits showed 'that:

--4municiuali~ties were a ch iev i nc, secondary treatment
or advai -t1ametiees as r~equired-ir their
permits.

SEPA s seco'ndary treatment require~ments specify. effluent
limitations for biochemical oxyqen de-mand, susoended solids,
and ~fecal. colifo~rm.~ In a'.xroroosed. reaulation ipub2.isled on
Auqust la5, 1975, EPA: would eliminate the ef fluent_ Iimita-
-tions on fecal co'liformn from the se condiry treatmentt

2As of Seote'mbe-.15, JP5 EP-A had pi-,bl ish edo r eIt rea tmen t
standards for 13 of the 27' industrial. cateqories identified-
in secti4on .306 of- the act as th6 worst sources of_ water
Pollution.- (Se4e o-16.) However, onlv.6 of the 13.onub-.
*lished pretreatment 'standards covered all subcategories
within each indlustrial cateqcrv. ,An Ep.: official Said
that a time frame for oromulatnstnrsfote
remaininq: cat~cories had not been established anld attrib-
uted thre slow develooment of tfte standards to limited staff
res-ource'sand limited technical data on the affected
industries..

32.j

-32 Li n-i.-ialities wer e achievinq secondary~ treamn
or: h iq her levels but were not achievinq the rt~cuired
advanced treatment levels necessary to -me'et State
* ~~~~~effluent limitations or water quality Standards.

* -~~~-42 municipalities were: achievinq only Driniarv treat-
* ~~~~~ment, even. tnouqh.. 20 were r-equired ~to. achie-ve
secondary treatment and 22~ were .r~equired~ to achieve
advanced treatment levels to meet State effluent
* �~~~~~imitations -or water quali~ty 'stan~dards.

--7 municipalities planned to tie into rqonal waste
waterltreatment facilities.

--5manicioalities actiievinq primarv treat-ment, were not
required to achieve secondary, treatment because ~of
limited Federal funding.

Of the 20-municibalities recuired to achieve secondary
-treatment, 10 vrobablv will not-do-so b y July 1, 1977,
because construction cannot be cornoleted by that date or
because of ~a lack. of. federal funds. Of 'the 54 municipalities
required to achiev,,e advanced treatment by- July -l. 1977, 28
* oco~ab-v will not do sc, becauS4� of" a lack of-Federalfud
or construction cannot be comoleted by that date.

FEDERAL FUNDING
The 912 mendents declared- a natio nal plc fpo
viding Federal financial assistance to construct oublicly
owned 'waste water treatment works. The amendments authorized
EPA throughk its construction grants program to allocate $18
billion, to the States-7-~55 billion, 56 billion, and $7 billion
for f iscal;versts 973 i 1974, n 17, resetvl-t
finance 75:percent of the cost to construct the treatment
wor~ks'

After. EPN awards a constiuction qrant, it av take a
longV time toi comolete'a waste-zreatm'ent olant. EPA has
estimated that it takes an average of--from 3 to 6 years to
* - . .. . - lani design, and~construlct wasre water treatment rlants.
Thereforel,manv oroject-s ~funded under the proqram cannot
be comoileted by 191-t.

EiPA awards construCtIon arannts to Munir-4-alities from
the allocatin according to EP4-aooroved a-~r . St-ace
prioritv Ilists of orojects. EPA reaulaticn rzie States,
in determininq which orojects may be funded., to consider

such factors as the severity of ollution nroblems, the
p ooulation affected,- the need for preservation of-
~ 0X0 ;t3 high-qualitv waters, national Drior-ities, anci total funds
available.

From the annual state oriority lists of eligible oroj-
:.:*:: - u 0;:ects, a cutoff ooint is determined on the basis of available
allocated funds. Projectsi below the cutoff ooint will not
be approved by EPA, and many p:rojects cannot be funded.

For examale. the Pennsylvania rtioritv list for fiscal
year .1975, approved by EPA in Sentemoer 1974, contained 192
projects at a cost of $369.1 million but Federal funds of
$222.7 million were allocated te finance only the f irst 58
projects. As of April 1, 1975, EPA reqion III had received
grant apolications for 24 of the 58 projects--8 had been
approved, 13 were under review, and 3 required more
information..

that0 In a February 1975 report to the Conqress, EPA stated
zEthat the :Stat theStates had estimated costs of $107 billin to meet
0 ~:: ~the 1983 goal for waste water facilities and an additional
; $2.5: billion: for abatement of storm water nollution as
follows.- -.

::0;00:V;X... - 0::I ar;-f.; .;; . :ver un : re:; aJ - -rAmount -

.0~~ : - - -(billions)

Secondary treatment $-12.6
Advanced treatment 15.7
�::---:: 0 ~ Correction of sewer
infiltration-inflow - 5.3
Major sewer- rehabilitiation 7.3
Collecticn sewers . 17.5
_-:f.I- - :;:: s Interceptor sewers 17 .8
* |u . 00.".l Correct-ionr of combined
*p:x- ; . 0sewer overflows .31.

;:V-0 i;--:1--_ .. . I . :- : Total 107 .3

. Treatment and/or co-troi l
of storm waters 235.0

�e :0 t;* Total a$342.,

al73 dollars.

The ~Adniinistrato r` -EiA in a July -3l 1 973,5 letter to
the: Director. 'iOf fice of -Manaqement and.: Budget (WNW), .stated
-that'EPN recocnized that the-$342 billion. estimated by the
States 'far exceeded> any level-of long-trn. fundinq that
could be reasonable, assumed within the~ Federal budget. T h.e
-Adm inistrator stated Viat cons~--cuentlv- some-changes must be
* ~~~~made in the currently authorized F'ederal share and/or~
eligibilities if it was <qoina to orovide the oublic with a
realistic,, achievable orogram which' 'was relevacnt -to the
*goals of the;1972- amiendments. EpAo-ronosed that 'I) the
;Federal 'share Of 15 6ercent !;e maintained for secondary
treatm~ent, advanced treatet n orcino sewer
* infiltration-inflow and interceotor sewers, .(2) the Federal
shae for major sewer rehabilitation and collection sewers
be reduced'from 75 percent -to 45~ percent, and (3) the
Feder al sha're for correction of combined sewer overflows
be reduced from 75 percent to- 60 nercent. EPA'also stated
*that the estimate of $235 billion for control.'of stormn water
discharqes is, clearly too larqe to be included in short-term
Federal funding and Proposed no Federal -funding before 1979.

On the basis.:of the above chanqes in the. Federal
sharing ratio,' EPIA proposed additional Federal funding
total-inq $42 billion- or'$7 billion,-annually during fiscal
~ydars 1977 through1982.

MJNICIPAL~ITIES UNABLE To COMPLY WITH'.
' JULY 1, 1977, REQUIREMENTS

In' December 1973 EPA etablihed, the pol icofisun
3:-year .6ermits to. rublicly owned treatment works which were
despite al 1'best efforts to ~do so. Such short-tr. emt
were to contain Only anordoriate' interim compliance mile-
stones and' performance and other. -conditions which could
realisticallyz be 7achieved durin th e te rmT of the perit

Th-irty-seven municinalities includ~ed in~ our samole,~
who were issued inermits,- had'little'or no 'chance of meeti-gi
- .thle July 1, 1977, water qua-lity requirements. These,
municibalfites were eit'her issued short-term oerrnits
expiringbefore Jlyl 177 ..or loiiqer term,,,,.ermits con-
taminin unachievanle abatemnent Sections. These n-rmits will
h ave: to be. mod i fi d o r reissued even if the July 1, 1977,
deadlinei is extended.

Short-term T;-rmits were issued to 17 of the 120~
municipalities in our, samnole because they would be i'nable
to meet the July 1, 197.7, water au al i ty reQuirements. An
additional 18 shott-term oerrnits were issued~for such-
* reasons as an expected tie-in to a regional system or

3 5

ossible revie ng of ioerrnit conditions re n di n co moet ion
of bas in ~studies. .The distributio n of~ the shrt-tr
DermnIts is shown in the following tabulation.

Short-term
eerits. issued-
because of
nermittee's Shr-em Total
inability to 'oerrit isud hr-term
~meet 1977 because of i:ermits in
~Location r~eauirements other reasons SaMEole

Reqion. III:
Pennsylvania 2 2
Delaware 1I 2 3

Region VT:
Illinois 96
Wisconsin 5105

Total 11835

EPA justified issuing~ short-term Permits'exbirinq before
*July 16, 1977, on the ba si~s that altho'cih every EPA-issued
Permit must contain. realistic com.Dliance dates, EPA could *
not establish or endorse comoijance- dates extending beyond
the statutory deadline.' However, such oerrnits will have
to be reissued before July 1, 1977-, -and. the Problem of
Dermittees' inabiiity to comoly with the statutory deadline
-will have to be faced at that ~time, if the de dlinesis not
extended or otherwise modified. An EPA official told us
that EPA had not ascertained "he nationwide total of
*Short-term permits.

Of the '120 Tpunicioal nermits we reviewled, 85 .ext~re
after July 1, 1977, and require the discharger to achieve
.secondary treatment or, more stringent treatment levels by
that date. Twenty -of the 35 oermits'were unrealistic,
*because the wunicioalitv was not expected to be able to
comol with the 1977 requirements. This was due orimarilv
to the lack o or delasi ob-taining Federal construction
qrant founds and failure of six of t~he municipalities to
ar)lv ~for construction arants.

The following tabulation shows the distribution of the
total :number of nerrnits ,in our samnle which require
*achievement of 1977 recruirements and the estimated number
of unrealistic oermilts.

36j

municli~alties
require ao Number of
co~lY wi th -municinalities
Location 1977 requirements u likelv to comoulv

ReQion. III.-
Pennsylvaniia 37 ~1
Delawa~re8

Region V:
Illinois 201
WKiscons in 20 I

Total ~ 85 20

A region 11II official told us that short-terma oermits
* had a~ disadvantage in that only interim limits could be
included which allowed the discharqer to continue "as he
* is doing" up to the date-'the rermit exoired. T'hus, the
* discharqe' did not-have: to waork~ towardsi comoliance with the
* 1977 requiremnents. Region I II belIieved: that'municioalities
should *be exposed to the goal of -reachingq-the requirements
of the act. Therefore,. Dermits wece qenerally issued for
5 'years and extended beyond July. 1, 197.7, 'and required
achievement, of the final effluent limitations bv July 1,
1977, although it was not known whether a municipality
Would actually be able to.-comnly with the oermit conditions.
Accord ing,~ to an EPA region III reuort of January 20, 1975,
527 of 663 issued municipal Toermits extende-d beyond.Julv 1,
*-1977, -and reauired comoliance~with secondary or advanced
treamtrent levels.

* . P~~or 25 of the 3-7~Pennsylvania verviits in our: zamp~e
*.that'-equired~ full comapliance by July 1 .1977, we obtained
the orinionslof State official' and the munici,3al z~f ficials
* ~~~~and/or their consulting- engineers -as to the 'likelihood of
mee-tincvthe~ 1977 re-cuiremnents. These officials indicated
that 16 of the 25 permittees probably. woul~d be unable to
* . ~~MeLet the 1977-deadline. Our review~ of reqion'111 data
indicated that- another 2 nermnittees would nrobably be,
* unable to meetthe requirements; therefore, a total of 18
of 37 munIcinal oerrnittees in Penrnsv1lvania -would be unable
to Eet the'1977 -mreQuirements- -Of the- 13 uertnits.i 3 were
* above the funding cutoff,.9 Were below the funding cutoff
for~ 1975, and had not~ aolid far a constrtiction grant
* and therefore were not on theprieorioty list..

A '0roject for uordt h acilitv cZOVILed by the
* nealistic Illinoipet-soni the-tabulatian'on
oaqe 37- ranked 550 of. 979 o-rojects on the~ State.s
priority list with -Oroject number 40 itdas the lowest
ran.inq nroject.:which would iorobablv be funded. In June
1974 wisconin notif ied the oerrxittee in. our Aample wt
the unrealistic nermit that the nermit would -he. Modified~
to- eliminate, the unrealistic requitements. (See *au'. III
for -aditioal ~examples of ~unrealisi x6ermits.)...

* Accord'inq to teqion' III officials, the reqion was
uder-orussure to issue asmayeriss oibeb
December 31, 19714, and therefore did not: have enouqh time
to inquire into the ability of each municipalitv to.
realistically' achieve the 1977. requirements.

* :The unrealistic permits will have, tot-e revised or
reissue-d before July 1., 19 77 T. -Req ion III. has not identified
the number of such Permits. They Plan to reissue the
p errnits on alcase-bv-case basis after the D-ermits are
identified throuqh the enforcement croqram as not comolyina
with their schedules~ of compliance. This approach may not.
be adequiate to identify all the. unrealistic oerwitsf because
the, req iort plans -to closely monitor only sianificant
discharqers.

COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CON~DITIONS.

In-reqions 11t;andV, EPA-and the States reborted that
* 231 'municipal-it ies--52 in region II I: and: 179~ in region VJ--
had not compl!ied with .abatement schedule actions required
d'uriq the quarter ending January 31, 1975. For 'examole,
in region III,'63,EPA-isse uncpal roermits had comoli-
ance actions'due durina the quarter'but-52, or 83 nercent,
ere not~ in~ comioliance with the required action. .-

W 'e reviewed..60 municipal nermits' included in our
* . . ~sample to determine whether the municipalities were corn-
7 olying with ~their Dermit-conditions., The 60'nermiits
reauired'-28 munic'ipalities to-take abatement .actions and
*14 to submit 'abatement scfied.ilies to EPA 6rmonths ;after the
" e~t issuance date. No action. was required. f or the other
18 ermits,~ because they we_~re alre~adv rneetinq oermit
requirements opr were- iss ued short-term. oermits.

Of the 28 oermits that contained-abatement. schedules,
17, had abatement acLions due at the time of our r eri ew.
* Four Dermittees 'submitted rerorts. to- EPA or the States bof
which~ two reported that the' wr in compiliance with their
schedule,. The other -two iaermittees told EPA or the State

- 38:

that thev ~wou Ld'be -unahie ~to -comnllv with t he btmn

schedules ~becau se of construction de-lavs. EPA.acuarentlv
~took no further ac tion aqainst the, ermittees.

- - ~~~EPA'and. the:States -followed ub and contacted'7 of the
134 'lerinittees ~which -failed to-.: subnit the required renort of
compliance or nonzompliahce. . One oermittee was in comoli-L
ance and subsequently submitted tecrlicenifcato
to EPA.. The following table summarize-s the reasons for
noncompliance by' the mother six phrimittees.

Construction delays 2

Construction grant hot receivedt I

Failure to aiaoly for a
construction grant1

Fail'ure to submit f i nal.,P lans: I

Other I

Total.6

Only I 1of the 14 municipalities required to submit
abatement'schedules to EPA did so, on time. EPA contacted 11
of the 13 r~oncomplying permites 3 subsequently submitted
the schedules and the other 8 did not.~

At the time of our review no overall data on the extent
of noncompliance with effluent limitations or revortitq~
requirements was available in region V. In region III, EPA
reorted as of June 6, 1975, that 150 municioa icaqr
had exceeded: their effluent limitations and 61 had failed.
to Subi discharcle moFnitorinq reports-.. As of-May 31,1975,
a total of 1,459 municipal aermits had been issued within
region III. Reqion III has olaced low pr'iority on monitor-
inq and.eriforcina effluent limitations and for te most Dal-
took no action to follow, u- on the noncompliance.

For the 60 municipal nerrmitz we reviewed, 52 required
* .submittinq dischar e montrn r,--orts dorinq our review.
We found t.hat 16 had exceeded t'heir interim or final
effluent limlitations. -l had submitted incomplete 7. nitorin~
reports, and 20 nad faiiled to submit monitoring renorts.
* EPA or the States followed uo, in 1I cases and either con-
tacted the Dermittee or deter-mined no further action was
necessary. Th lter 32 aozarentlv were not contacted.

EN FORC EMEN~T

-EPA and, the States do not alan to take enforcement
action against municipalities which-fail to achieve bV
July- 11 .1977, secondary or a d va6n ce dtreatment levels,
heerequired,-becausoa lack of Federal funds. All
EPA'nolicy statement in December l~73 stated, in nart,
that althouqh the law did iiot make municioal compliance
directlv continen on the availability of Federal funds,
it~was w-idelvy rec-.(nized that the increase. of the Federal
share to ~75 D~ercu. of construction costs made'it highly
unrealistic in m.. cases to force Tarnicinalities to1
finance waste wa. treatment facilities withoult-Federal~
funds.

However,4 if. E P fails to. take enforcemient actions.
citizens or icitizen qroups can take leqal action against
the discharger or against EPA for failure to take action.
Municplte arsbect to f ines uin to $10, 000 a day if
in violation of permit conditions. Willful or neqligent
Violations could bring a fine un to $25,000 a day and I
year in orison~for the first offense and au to $50,000 a
day and 2 years in. orison for subsequent violations.

In a July 31, 1975,-Ietter to table D'rector, 0MB, the
Administrator, EPA said that in view of the fact that over
TO,000 -commun ities serving about .60 oer'-ent of' the orojected
1977 pooulation would not be able to co'moly with the
July 1, 1977, deadline for secondary treatment ormore
stringent *treatment where required, EPA strongly supoorted
*and recommended .a leqislative prooosal to authorize
case-by-c-ase extensions from the July 1, 1977,~ deadline.
Case--bv.--Case extensions would~be qranted on the basis of
*nonavailability of' Federal funds, the Administrator said.
- CONICLUSIONS~

Municipalities are Tnakin some oqess toward abatina
wateri -ollution.. EPA, ho'oeveri estiimated th'at -a majority
of the N at i 6 n s mun i cioalI d i s ha r Qe rs would * no t m-ee t wa te r
* a~ualitv, reqkuirements by thle JUIN, 1, *l.?7. deadline. The
availability, of Federal funds--nat permits-is the orincioal
factor in getting municioadities to. construct secondary or
ad ~ anced treatment facilities, where reouired, to meet water
crauality~ requirements. Federal. fu ndi, however, had oro-
Ineeded atk a Slow nace--on_3V.S646 billion of the $16 billion
had been ~Obliqated at June 30, 15~75, and only $1. billiion
soent--and funds needed to construct facilities--$342
*bil-lion--far~ exceeded funds authorized. .EPA recommended to

40~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

oIB that theoJuly 1I1~7 renuirement :be extended on~ a
-_as-bv-case basis fo.miiaiie er Federal
construction qrant funds; wernt avalbe

*--Almostt all:,mermits issued to munici'laliftes will need:
to be either reissued.'or modified;'in~ fiscal-vear 1977
because (1: pe rmits ~issued f or~ t;hor t-terms .illexre
(2)- EPA wants'to coordinate oollution a.batement schedules
.in Der mits with -availability of ~Federal funds -and estab-
lish reasonable coastru ~Iio~ri U Timetables, arid- (31 - PA -_InS
toincorporated undated treatmernt requirements- into the
Dermits.-*
For EPA~ to realize~ the-ful 0,tnilbeeiso
municipal, permits, it will have to insur e through anoro-
Driate administrative., monitoring., andlenforcemment actions
that municipalities:

-~Maintain their treatment level and not exceed their
current dis ~h-re as t f or'th in the- permit. This
requirement. can hv thefect of arevetn nw
sewer connections to overloaded :waste',water-treat--
i..ment plants.

--Adhere toW Prescribed -ef fluerit limitations which will
- require- opim Iees of,- plant~ operation and
~~V ~~maintenance.-and comol,~tion.~ of an mio ailitv
upq tadi nq wh ich c'an 'be. undertaken-without Federal
-funding.

* ~~~~~~--.rompt1lv applV for and use available construction
qrantifunds.

--Periodicallv zonitor and reoort- on discharqes to-EPA
;and/or -States. -

-The bermit- programi as. An enforcement too! is of
- imited benefit, bcse EPA ndth -e 'States do not olan to-
- . *~~take enforcement actions-te wol bnoooctve--
against municioalities which, fail to construct needed
* - ~~facilities by. July 1,' 1.91:7 because 'of insufficient Federal
-fund.5. Permi-ts -tied ipto' Federal' funding and c~ntaainina
* realistic permiticonditions, nowever, can lead to abatement
* f water , ollation, I.- the .oermit conditions are vrooerly.
* enforced.

]MATTER- FOR CO-NeIDERATION BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Takinq' enforcement actions aqainst.municiolis
-unable-to construct facilities to achieve water qual ity
requirements by JUly 1., 1974., because of insaffi.cient time
or Fetderal ~funds would: be; nooo-tv.Therefore, the
SUb6coizmittee mav wish to-procoose-amending- section .301(b) (1)
o,,f the f'ederal Water Pollution Control Act to xorovide that
~ ay qrant such mtrunicipali~ties. extensionis beyond July 1,
3774, Opn a ca~se-by-case basis, to ac.h-ii~va water' ciual-itv
requirements.

4 2

-BPPEND1X- I APNI

N UI TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* .~~~~~ ~WASHINGTON. D.C G6

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OFFICE GI
PLANNING XND W-AN9GEMENT
Mr.~ Herry Es-hwese
Director~
Resources'and Economic Development Division
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington: 'D. C. 20548,

Dear Mr. Esch,%ege:

We have received'your draft report entitled "Implemnexting
Water Pollution Control Perm-it Program: Progress and Problems. '

-In ~general, the report reflects an accuratue assessment, of the
overall problems which have affected the NZational Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit prograrr.

* - ~~The major programs inadequacies identified in the conclusions-
have been recognized by the Enforc~erent.ahnd Permits Divisions of
our Office of Water Enforcemen~t and are currei~t'ly being rectified'
!irough policy changes and. revised Regional guidance.

With regard to your: recomnmendation that the Admininitrator
encourage States I as sumnption of ~NPDES program, we concur and c~an
now report that. the re are .27 states wh-+ichi have been approved. We.
Wml continue to. invit-e land help other states resolve their diffe-rencee
* between State laws and Federal requirements so -they will also be
* ~~eligible.

I apreiat th oportunit you haegiven EPA to review an~d
comment 'on. this report prior to its subrrission to Congress.s

-Sincerelyvo, s

Alvin L. Alma
Assistant Administrator
for Planning and Managemnert

: 0A~~~~~PPEND IX I* I-t1: 000;000;: 0 -- APPENDIX I1

'TENE E2AMLES. OF INDUSTWRIAL PDES 'PEMITS

�0: ' ' IThe 10z examles discussed below are representative of
t :he 50 industrial permits included:in our. sample. The
examples highlight individual instances of progress- and
problems of implementing the NPDES.permit program as
::i discussed in: the body.of the report .-

The glossary of terms and definitions in: appendix IV
will be helpful in understanding the effluent limitations
contained in the permits.

EXAMPL E NO.: I, PROCESSOR OF CLAMS--PROBLEMS WITH
CONNECTING TO REGIONAL :UBLICLY OWNED WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY:

The company., located in Delaware, processes surf clams
into a variety of clam products. It discharges untreated
1 -process water and'noncontact cooling water into a river.

Delaware originally issued-the company a'5-year NPDES
permit that was effectiv*e Decemher.31, 1974. �However, the
permit:-had to be revised on the basis -of updated discharue
test data the company's consultant submitted to the State.
The revised permit became effective.rFebrteary 25, 1975.

The permit required the company to construct a primary
treatment plant for the process waste water that had to be
operational by January 15, 1976, to meet required interim
effluent limitations. -To meet the July :, 1977., requirements,
the company was given the option of either constructing
additional treatment facilities to upgrade the level of
treatment above primary or connecting to a regional treatment
plant and thereby discontinuing all discharges into the
-river. The company had to notify the, Stace of the option
. chosen by October 30, 1975.' State personnel told us they
preferred that the company tie.into the regional system.

:: - However, the regional. system is: nof expecte- to be
operational until April 1978. Therefore, if the coampany
chooses to connect to the regional system, it will be unable
'to comply with the July 1, 1977, requirements.

. 44

;APPENDI II APPEDI I

Baes; foreffluent limitations.

i The f inal effluentlimitations which the company was
required:to meet: by August 31, 1977,1 in the event it did
not chocse to connect to the regional treatment system were
based on State regulations. The regulations require 85
percent removal of BOD5S and suspended solids. Although EPA
had promulgated final.effluent guidelines for the seafood
industry, they did; not cover the company's products.

Effluent limitations

� The final effluent limitations in the perrit are
summarized in the following table.

Limitations
Daily Daily Maximum instantarleous
Characteristic average maximum concentration

BOD55 700 lbs 1,400 lbs 840 mg/1

TSS 240 lbs 490 lbs 290 mg/l

Fecal- coliform 200/100oml

Total coliform 1,0 00/100 ml

pE 6 to9 -

:Free -chlorire residual shall not be less fhan 2 mg/1 nor
z;greater than 4 mg/1 after a 30-minute contact time at maximum
� flow.

i Adherence to permit conditions

We completed our review of' compliance with permit condi-
tions on April 11, 1975, before deadlines for the company to
submit a compliance schedule progress report and the first
discharge monitoring report.

- Company comments

A :company representative told us that it was very
cdncerned:.over the cost Jof complying with the permit. The.

1A -State representative told us that requiring the company
to meet the final limitations by August 31, 1977, rather
than July1l, 1977, was an oversight.

:.iV :: f |:: E f : : f - f : D : . : ': : : : : f
. . .- . ..

:-0AP PENDIX: T I APPENDIX II

company would be..forced into� a long-term debt without any
-; return on the investment. He sail that the primary treatment
*' .' ~ :- plant would cost about $1-25,000 and'that pilot studies made'
by the company indicated that- upgrading the plant to second-
a;:ry treatment level would cost an additional $300,000.

::--: ' f'He also said that if it decided to join the regional
system it would incur the expense of acquiring the right-of-
way to connect to the-interceptor in addition to their share
of the incremental costs to expand the treatment plant to
accommodate the added volume of wastes -County and State
personmel told us the industrial user cost data would not be
.::.-I -:.' known until .about September 1975.

E;; PLE NO. 2, tAUtU3FACTURER OF GPREASES AND OTHEER
SPECIATIES FR-M LUBRICATING OIL BASE STOCKS--NO
EPA'EFFLUENT L.IMITATION GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO
COMPANY'S MANUFACTURING PROCESS

* 000- I:liII -: :-The manufacturer is located in Pennsylvania and rou-
_.v0: tinely-discharges waste water'from two outfalls. into the
Allegheny River. One discharge is cmposed of once.through
noncontacti cooling water, steam condensate, a-d clean rain-
water. The.other 'is' industrial' waste from the manufacturing
: operation.- . ..

; -_;: - -:: - _ The company applied fora' discharge parmit under the
.: :~.;: old Refuse Act program in.July 1971.'-EPA issued a 5-year
permit on February 28, 1974.. Before the permit was issued,
the company employed-'a consultant to design an addition tb
-;::its waste water treatment system to meet the July 1, 1977.,
:requirements. : -

-Efflunt limitations .

EPA had na effluent limitation guide:lines applicable to
the company's: anufacturi'ng process.. EPA region III based
the final effluent.limits in the perniit on its 'general
- guidance, a. State standard, and an EPA standard. 'The follow-
::ing tableshows the final effiuent. limits in 'the permit for
the industrial waste and .the basis for each limitation.

APPENDIX II " � ' ' - . APPENDIX II

Characteristic Daily avera Basis

''i" I :BOD5 .. ;: : a2.5 Region III general guidance

TSS a!.0 Region III general guidance

Oil and grease a0.8 Region III general guidance

Phenols :0.1 lb State standard

Temperature 110 �F maximum Region III general:guidance

pH :6:to 9 EPA water quality standard

aPounds per: batch discharge.

Compliance schedule

The :permit included a comDliance schedule requiring the
construction of additional treatment facilities. The schedule
required:

Completion of final plans June 30, 1974
Commencement of construction September 30, 1974
Completion of construction October 31, 1975
Attainm nt of'operatic .a
level January 30, 1976

Adherence to permit conditions

The company had not met the compliance schedule dates.
The company was 5 months late in submitting final plans for
the new treatment facility because of problems encountered when
the planned system was tested. Construction was not started
on September 30, 1974. The cormpany has requested this date be
changed to July 30, 1975, because of delays in equipment
delivery.

A region III official told us that technically the company
was in violation of its permit compliance schedule. However,
* region III would take no :erforcement action because the
company, was working towards compliance wich the July 1, 1977,
requirements and even though delayed, it should be able to
meet the requirements by tha- date. The perilit would have to
*i - be amended to reflect the changes in compliance schedule
dates.

.47

X P �- N A~D!IX: :II;;; .... AI I ; $ 0 i: 0: : : APPENDIX II

The company was submitting discharge monitoring reports,
as required by the permit.

EXAMPLE NO . 3, PETROLEUL REFINER--PERIT MODIFIED TO
INCLUDE LESS STRINGENT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS OF
- : SUBSEQUENTLY PUBLISHED GUIDELINES

The company operates a refinery in Pennsylvania and
discharges waste water from three points into the Schuylkill
River. Tlhe- ompany originally applie7d for a discharge permit
pursuant to the old Refuse Act program administered by the
ArxmyCorps of Engineers. Region III issued a 5-year NPDES
permit to the company on May 3, 1974.

Basis for effluent limitations

Region III based the final effluent limi -'ticns in the
permit, required to be achieved by July 1, 19 7, primarily
on proposed effluent limitation guidelines for the petroleum
'refining point source category as published in- the Federal
Register on December 14, l1973.

Appeal o:f effluent� limitations

��* ' :0;The company appealed the final effluent limitations in
the permit and requested that the less stringent limitations
contained in the final effluent limitation guidelines be
usedin establishing the permit limitations.. The final guide-
:- lines were published on May 9, 1974, 6 days after issuance
of the:permit.

: :-:Subsequently, proposed changes to the final guidelines
: - -were published on October 17, 1974, to redefine th' size and
:process factors. These proposed-changes wera-promulgated on
M..ay 20, 1975, as amendments to the final guidelines of May 9,
1974..

EPA, Pens-ylvania, and the company agreed to setIle the
appeal through a stipulation. The final limits contained in
the stipulation were based on the proposed ui-deline amendments
of October- 1974.

Effluent limitations

The following table compares the three cha;ges in
�effluent limitations applicable to the compan-ys major source.
of pollution, the discharge from its biotreatment of wastes.

APPENDIX II: APPENDIX ZlI

!Pr-pse Firnal - Proposed xnerded
* - guidelines g~~~~~~~uidelir'e gu.idelie
-12-14-73 -97 10-17-74
Cbaracteristice Maxiuii Avrag Y-~i~mm Average NaxmiE
(pcnds pe dy

Ips, ~ 858 ~1,150 1,229~ '2,204 .1,331 2,396

Chical cxgmi
demar"I 7,488 9,360 8,3541 16 458 9,291 17,905.
* ~~~Ttal organic
caxbor 7 1,268 1,560 - --

TSS ~~566 702 800- 1,150 871. 1,476

il and grease -351 3538-383,

Ar~nia as
nitrogen -230 ~624 '663: 1,463% 726 1,597

Sulf ides 4.9. 7.8 6.-4 14.4- 7.1 15.8

zinc 6.-7 19.2 ---

p~hncis0 .1 as a16 ~ .7 a17.9

* ~~~~bTtal chrniun m 19.- 33.2 21.3 36.3

lknaval1nt
chrcm--tw ~ - .31; .68 -.34 .75

j ~~~~~~~~~to9 -.

Submission of requrd. eo

The~ compan whad been, submintting compliance sch-edule d-ata
as required but had not been submitt~ina discharge'monitori-S
* - reports. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Th.e tompany's opnion was that the monitoring rencrt
need riot be submitted while the permit was under appeal..

Xg0 APPEN-Dix II f ; 0U -. APPENDIX II

EXAMPLE NO. 4, PROCESSOR OF CHICKENS--LACK OF
.:-0 i -EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES

.The.company, located in Delaware, processes up to 100,Co0o
: chickens a day. It discharges treated waste from one outfall
into a creek.

EPAissued the company a 3-year.NPDES permit. that became
: effective January 2? 1974. A 5-year-permit was not issued
because a stream study was to be- done which could change the
conditions of the permit.

: Basis for effluent limitations

Final effluent guidelines were not issued for this industry
as of April 1975.' The final effluent limitations for BOD and
TSS in the permit were based on EPA interim-effluent guidance-
meat products. Ammonia and oil and grease limits were based on
� region III standards. Since the permit was issued, propcsed
effluent limitation guidelines have been published for poultry-
: processing products, The following table compares the final
permit.limitations with the pronosed guidelines..

Limitations
Average daily Maximum daily
Proposed. Proposed
Characteristic Permit s Perut idelines Permit uielines

- (pounds)

BOD5 173 189 519 377

TSS: : 26154 . 522 508

Ammonia: 1 -0 150 -

0: il and grease 100 82 .: 150 164

Fecal coliform a2:0100 ml a400/10 ml
max.

' pH 6 to 9 6 to 9

a
;; aColonies.

APPENDIX I APPENDIX II

The permit also limits arionia, which is not included irn
'::0 t he proposed standards for this industry.'

-Compliance schedule

The permit required the company to reduce total water
, usage, reduce dilution of lagoons, improve solids collection
:. in the plant, and complete improvements in the lagoons by
- J ': une l, 1974. The company installed an.air fl otation unit to
further clean up the water discharge afcer it. leaves the
lagoon.. According to the company, the facilities cost over
$200,000 and-between $200 and $300 a week to operate.

Adherence to permit conditions

The compliance schedule was based on what the company
intended to do, but the company experienced delays in equip-
ment delivery which resulted in violations of the compliance
-:schedule. The;company requested. EPA to extend the compliance
date, and the State concurred in the request. EPA expressed
satisfaction with the efforts of the company to meet the intent
of the compliance schedule and granted the request for an
* extension of the compliance dates. "

The company's monitoring data for the quarter ended
*.: -: March- 1975 showed the effluent limitations in the permit were
being met.

EXAMPLE NO.' 5, ABATTOIR--SHORT TERMI PERMIT ISSUED
;- :: BECAUSE COMPANY EXPECTS TO CONNECT TO A MUNICIPAL
: -SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANIL

-.-:The company, located in Pennsylvania, slaughters cattle,.
hogs, calves, and lambs for the manufacture of meat products.
- The- company discharges waste water from a .single point source
�: 000 into a river.:

.The company applied for a discharge permit under the
- old Refuse Act proqram in November 1971. Region III issued
an NPDES permit to the company..on June' 25, 1974:. The permit
was-to expire on December 31, ::1975.

EPA issued a-short-term permit, because. the company
::.:planned tototerminate its discharge into the river and connect
to a municipal. Sewage treatment plant. The tie-in depends on
the construction of a planned regional interceptor sewer.
Pennsylvania's tentative priority list for fiscal year 1976
indicated tha the interceptor may be funded in that year.
EPA plans to reevaluate the permit when it expires in light
of the funding situation at that time.

APPENDIX 11 'APPEN!CIX :r1:

Permit _6ondition1AS

The pe~rmit contains the following' inter'im, effluent

Dail.y Daily
ChLaracterist-ic ~~e maximum Basis for limit
(punds

BOD5 ~~~930. 1,120 Pnitesapiao

TSS 240. - 280 'PerMittee's application.

~Oil and grease .60 72 Permittee's application

:Fecal coliforza e GOO/ 10 Go~mit~ application
(colonies pet
mililiter)-

pH ~ .6 to 91 EPA wateir-quallity standard

aAfter May l~1975,-.this limit was -reduced to 400/100 (colonies
per milltliter)-at the'request of .the Pennsylvania Depart-mentr
ofEnvironmental Resources.

In addi-;tion, four ot~her requirements w-re iinased~

* 1. Pretreatment requir~ments specified by either the
Pennsylvania-Department of Environmental Resources,
the regional sewer authority, or the municipal sewage
treatmenti plant would be mei~t no later than.May 1,~
1975.

2.~ Plans-for achievin~ best Practicable treatment or
Connecting to the municipa2l sewage plant by July 1,
* ~~~~~1977, shall be. transmitted to region 111~, and the
Pennsylvania Deijartzent-of Environmental Resources
by October. 1, 1975.

*3. The4'discharge shall not'cause a rise intestream
temperature of more than 5OF above the ambienrt or a
maxizrum- of 87'F--which(~ver is less; hot to be
changed by more than 21F any 1-hour period.
4.Acompliance schedu'le requiringcosrtinf
pretreatmexnt facility by May 1, 1975.

' 'APPENDIX II :. APPENDIX� II.

Adherence top ,ernit conditions and company
comments

The company was behind schedule in installing the
required. pre'treatent facility.

It had not been able to obtain pretreatment.standards
:from any of the several authorities involved. However, the
- -company proceeded with the installation of pretreatment
facilities hoping it would :be_ able to conlply with any pre-
treatment standards subsequently imposed..

The discharge monitoring reports submitted had not been
completed, because fecal coliform test results were not
shown. .Region III was enforcing the compliance schedule but
did not enforce the discharge limitations.

EXA.%MPLE NO. 6, LMtAUFACTURER OF PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS--
BOTH EPA AND STATE LIMITS IMPOSED FOR SAME
POLLUTANTS AND PEPSIIT CONDITIONS CCHALLENGED-

The company, located. in Illinois, manufacturers paper-
board products.' it discharges waste water into the
'M: ississisppi River, considered an effluent-limi.ted segment.
The company submitted applications for discharge permits in
June 1971Vand April 1972 under the cld Refuse Act program.
* Region V issued an -NDES permit to 'the company on
November 13, 1974: The permit expires on August 31, 1979.

Basis for effluent limitations

EPA final _effluent-limitation guidelines for the pulp
and:paper industry were available and covered this company.
Because State standards were more restrictive, EPA included
two sets of effluent limits in the p>emits--State concentra-
tion and EPA wei-ht limits. EPA weight limits are based on
tons of production while State Limits are ';ased on the
_i concentration of each particular , ffluent characteristic
measured imm~ediately- after the final' treatment prGcess.

Effluent limitations

The following effluent limitations must be met by the
company during the specified time fra.es.

~APPENDIX 11I APPENIDIX 11

Linitations

wDaily Daily Daily Daily-
CTharacteristic avexage, Ina-=wx aerae. Rk-DOM=

Outfall 001 - Decemer 13, 1974, Lntil April 30, 1975

TSS 130: q/1 -260.0 mg/I
pH 6o

wXtfall 00] May 1, 1975, until March, 31, 1977

BCD5 9,080-kg 38,160g - -
TSS 1,905 kg 3,81-0 kg --
'pH 6 to 9

Outfall. 001 -April 1I 97, until Aug~ust 31, 1979

BOD5 11140 kg 2,290 kg 20 Mg/1 50.0 M./I
a1Ss 1,905 kg 3,810 kg 25 mg/l 62.5 n-r/l
iron --2.O m g/I
* I.ad -.--0.1 m/
Mlang~anese ---1.0 m/
'Ibtal dissolved

oil ~grease 1.-- 350.0 Umg/i
Ta~erature - ()-

Cutfall 002 -Decae~r 13, 1974, t~:till March 31, 1977'

MsS mdniktiir only,
Tot.aldissolved
so. ;ds: MMI ntr Cnly
Iron (total) Mzautoro6nly
* M~~~~axgaes RX'liter ony
ilaigrease !kntrol
Boron ~ Moitbr Cray
pH~~~~ 6to 9
Qatfal 002 -April1 1, 1977, until -Ai~gst 3,17

-TSS -15. 0 rm/l
Toal dssolved
solids - - - ~~~~~~~750.0 mg/i (net)
Iron (total) , -- 2.0 mg/i
Mzngaxnese ---1.0 m/
Oil and grease 1 5.0mg/~l
Boron -* b

~-aTenmperature limits:-
I.The axmmtpetuerse' abve naua emperatures
shall no exceed 2.181C (5F tthe edge ~Of the mixing

2. Water temerature at representatIve lCatin Ofth

:edge of the mixing- .7.6ne shall not exceed the maximum
Ilimits in U. eri during more-than 1. percent of
the hours in the-12-month, period ending w ith. any
month.~ Moreoverf, ~at no times shall- the temperaiture
asuch locations axceed the maximum- Perm it 'imits
bymore tham 30F.

3. In th event te permittee is unable to cocpy it
the ~abo've~ thermal *limitationis. he will provi-de
sufficient off-stream, recirculating cooling
capacity, designed for year-round operation. The~
bowdown (discharge water) from the system shall
cntain no slimicide antifularnts, or corrosion
inhibitors for-which-written Approval. has riot been
secured from the Regional Administratoz, and'tht
Illinois Environmental Protection Age6ncy.

bLimited tc level that will not ea se receiving water to
exceed the S~tate .water qual~ity.-standard.

/ -z ;. APPENDIX II .. APPENDIX Ii

Compliance schedule -

-~-;0E :The company was required to adhere to the following
complianceschedule..

iCompletion of conversion to 100%
secondary fiber furnish March 1, 197:
Attainment of interim effluent .
limitations May 1, 1975
Submission of final nlans and
specificationxs July l, 1975
Progress reports on stages 3
and 4 March 1, 19.76
Progress reports on stagec 3
and 4 October 1, 1976
Completion of construction March 1, 1977
Start of full operation April 1, 1977

Appeal of permit conditions

On November.25, 1974, the company requested an
adjudicatory hearing, but EPA had not yet'held :the hearing
by the- time we completed our review in April 1975. The
company challenged the following permit conditions.

i. Schedule of compliance

The c ompany claimed it had a comprehensive water
;-\ management program underway with the end objective
of designing and constructing a waste water treat-
: ment facility capable of producing an effluent of
quality ,hich would consistently meet EPA require-
ments. It stated the final treatrent facility
could be built and in operaion'by June 1978
- :providing a very tight ti.e _ sch edule was followed.
*?S0:0::; ;::;I :t wanted the compliance schedule amended to
provide for attaining full operation on June 30,
1978.

.- E2. Effluent limit-ations

The company stated that effluent limits based on
EPA standards were acceptabler b-t it challenged
':L::00: :the use of both EPA weight and State concentration
-0Q:-~ ; : : limits.

3. Frequency of monitoring for BOD

';t ~ 0 The company challenged the need for monitorinc BOD
on a daily basis, stating the same information could
be obtained with less frequent testing.

56
:provi~~~ing :a-vezy-tight-tir~~~~~ srrsci~~~~e was follosredl~~e

APPENDIX 11I APPENNDIX I I

4. ~ioitorin requrements. for boron

The: crime. lny knew of no basis for inclusion of boron
IC- ar. e'"_ uent characteristic.

5 . Reorting ~equIrements

The compaziy challclnged the requirement for submit-
J ting.monitoring reports to both region Ir and the
Ill-inois State water pollution control agency. it
z ~~~~claimed it was .unnecessary and redundant.

Regarding the- cmuaany's. reqL-ast for a con-liance
schedule modification, we noted.that the EPA Office of
EnforcmentNational Field Investigation Centr visited
the plant in July 1974 and commented:

* "~'The .[company] has embarked on a comprehensive
program toc bring themselves into compliance with
the 'Illinois'Water Pollution Control Board Order
of July.18, 1974.- This' program will bring them
to-levels of discharge better than BATEA lbest
available technology economically achievable) for
*thezPaperboard From Waste _Paper Subcategory of
the Pulp,~ Paper,. and Paperboard Point Source
Category."

Since the company challenged most of. the permPit condi-
tics, 'these condit].ons were not enforceable and therefore
no0 violaticn's were noted.

Regqion "V -said on November'19~ 1975, that the company
ha~ iotacceplted EPA's proposals for resolVing the challenge
Law Judge _f__schedul-ing prehearing conference.

* ~~~ENAMPLE NO.' .7, MANUFACTURER OF I'N-ORGANIC- PIIET
COMPANY OPERATING -UNDER STATIE STANDARDS 13EFOFRE
* ~ ~~~ IS S-UANCE~ 0F -P E P-1I T ANDP EA EEN FO REY. - ACTION.
The, campany. a manufacturer o nr'ncpgeti
located Jin. T1llinois and discharuet,. i-to a .segment of a
crack which. is desigate efflent- limited.. --he. c-orpany
appli ed for-_.-'ischarc --ern-it uLader the old Reuse Act i'
September 1971.. Rectc-n ', i ssued the coutpany an. I-PDES De=z~t
on Feb-ruary 20, 1974, wAith an ex~iaratiDn date of Dece:mber

' ; - ffl00. . - -tV .:

� ' �- :- APPENDXII- . APPENDIXII

-,Basis for effluent limitations

: :i:::0 Final EPA effluent guideIines' were not available for
this :industry when the permit was issued, and effluent
-z limitations were based'for the most part oa Illinois
effluent standards.

Effluent limitations

The permit contained the following effluent limitations.

Daily
Characteristic maximum Basis

Cadmium (total) .05 mg/l Present quality plus
.025 mg/I which is
. still more restrictive
.r:S; :: : � : : :-than Staterstandard
of 0.15 mg/I

Lead (total) .1 mg /I State standard

Cyanide ::.025 mg/i State standard

. TSS 15 mg/1 - State standard

Zinc 1I mg/l. State standard

. Mercury (total) .0005 mg/:: State standard

- pH 6 to 9 : EPA guidazce

No discharge_:of floating solids or visible foar in other
than trace amounts.

i'Compliance schedule

. The company was within the required effluent limits at
the time the permit was issued .so no compliance schedule
was included in the permit.:

Adherence to permit conditions

EPA's records indicated that during the period of April
to June 1974, the company exceeded effluent limits for
mercury, lead, and total suspended solids. During the next
period, July to September 1974, the company failed to
monitor ptI.

APPENDIX . APPENDIX II

Enforcer-ent' actions .

EPA -issued a notification of violation on August 12,
1974, ::to the company. On October 29, 1974, EPA also issued
an administrative order to the company citing violation of
effluent limitaticns nd failure to monitor p'H. The company
i was also cited for failure to submit a notification of.
noancompliance and:for not using a separate discharge
� monitoring report for each month.

.On November 6, 1974, the company replied to the EPA
.:order, giving the following explanations for the apparent
violations:

1.; Failure to monitor pH was an oversight.

exceeded.. The apparent violations resulted from
* the-testing laboratory failing to make the analysis
to a :low enough concentration.

3. The limit for: total suspended solids was exceeded
* ; because the total suspended solids of the intake
water was exceedingly high due to heavy rains and
the lake "turni ng cver."

b 4., A notice of noncompliance was no-t submitted because
of inexperience in operating under the N'PDES permit
- .program and. therefore was an oversight.

5. A separat'e discharge monitoring report was not
submitted each month because the instructions for'.
- reporting were unclear.

Region V stated on November 19, 1975, that all discharge
monitoring reports received from the company since issuance
of the administrative order showed that the company was
meeting all effluent limitations...

Company comments

'An official of the company told us that his only com-
plaint. about the NPDES program was the excessive paperwork.
He-stated :that the program did not add any addition'al
effluent limitations for.-the company, since it was already
operating:under Illinois standards before receiving a permit.

I:;:- APPENDIX 'II APPENDIX II

EXAMPLE NO= 8, MAaNUFACTURER OF CELLOPHANE--ALT'ERN-ATIVE-
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITS COVER COITINUED DISCHARGE IN O
0 :WATEERAY Ph-D CONNi-ECTION TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMEIT
-PLANT

The company, :located.in Pennsylvania, manufactures
- polsveric-coated cellophane and researches and'develops fibers
and] films.- It discharges waste water from five ouutfalls into
a tributary of :tb Delaware River. The company applied for a
permit -Ja June 1971 under the old Refuse Act progrm.- Region
III issued a- 5-year NPDES permit to the company, effective
August 30, 1974.

; In December 1973 the company entered into. an agreement
W ith a Pennsylvania municipal authority to send industrial
wastes resulting from its operations to a regional sewage
treatrent plant-for which plans and specifications had been
*:1- : prepared and a Federal construction grant of $24.3 million
had been received.

:-0 ;: WiieB rev:iewed the permit effluent limitations for the
company's process waste water discharge. The permit was
written w'ith two sets of final effluent limitations: one
-which will apply after the company connects to the regional
syste and -the other which will apply if the company does
not tie-into the system. by July , 1, 977.

I: :':. ~:Basis for effluent 'limitations

- Final EPA guidelines. for the industry had been published
::.-0 ; before the pernit was issued. According to a region. III
engineer,, however, the effluent limitations applicable after
the company ties into the regional system were based on data
*-:-: 0-. furnished by .the company and-were. more stringent than EPA
would have imposed using the final guidelines. Of the final.
effluent limits applicable, if:: the company does not tie into
the regional-system by July 1, I1977, only the limits imposed
- for chemical oxygen demand and pH would be based on the final
guidelines. The limits on biochemical oxygen. demand and
total suspended solids'were'based on the more stringent
requirements of the Delaware River Basin Commission. The
temperature .liit was proposed .by the company and was more
' stringent than the regio0 III standard.

Effluent limitatior:s

f The permit contained the following effluent limitations
for the discharge we reviewed.

7;fff S 0:f f .: ; : :

$APPENDIX -11I APPENDIX II

.- : . : : -Limitations:
Daily Daily
::. Chaacteristic . aver ae maximum
.0 ;000 . - 0:t' (- � : . . -0 - ' . (pourn ds)

(From 8-30-74 to .6-30-77 or idate of tie-in� to
regional system.)

- : Temperature - -'- No:t to exceed 104�F
,- -:- ;0; $ . - Chemrical oxygen demandd 8,816 35,368
BOD5 4,089 14,349
TSS:: :: - : 2,353 : 18,511
pH . . 6 to 9

- (From date of contribution of parte of effluent
to the regional systeLm to 8-30-79,)

�!: -: : :-: Temperature .Not to exceed 104F
: Chemical oxygen demand 959- 5,754
BOD5 . 38 211
TSS 383 1,343
-pH: 6 to- 9

(From 7-t-77i if com.any has not tied in to
regional system, to 8-30-79, or date of tie-in.)

-Temperature Not to exceed 104�F
:Chemical oxygen demand 8,816 24,390
BOD5 (note a)
TSS (note b)
:: 0 .pH - 6 .o 9

I.;r 0:!$--~,- i f - aDelaware River Basin Commission allocation of
first-stage:oxygen demand for the company's
-- plant is 670 pounds a day. This is equal to
;529 pounds'. a day of BOD5. Any remaining wastes
after or in lieu of a tie-in to the regional
system nust not exceed this allocation.

bTotal suspended solids load limit for this plant
is 2,192 pounds a day, or 90 percent reduction
of total suspended solids in raw waste load,
�Q ...;' ;;: -- whichever is more stringent. This requirement
will apply in lieu of a tie-in to the regional
-*- :i:system.

APiz .... 3PENDIX -II ' APPENDIX EI

-: C omoliance schedule

- The permit contained the following compliance schedule.

Submit to EPA region IIi an
executed contract with the
Pennsylvania municipal
authority. - August 31, 1974

R -:: :eports of progress toward
contribution of wastes to
the regional system. Every 6 months

Adherence to permit conditions

The company submitted the required compliance and
discharge monitoring reports. In a March 5, 1975, memoran-
: . :0:dum, a region III official reported that an inspection of
: te company's plant to verify compliance with permit condi-
tions disclosed no discharge violations. The company
: reported to EPA on March 21, 1975, that design work
r. ecessary for the tie-in to the regional systenm was more than
75 percent0 completed.

A region III representative told us in April 1975, that
( ) construction of the regional project had not yet started
: but completion of= construction was planned for January 1977,
(2) a pumping station needed to convey the company's waste
-.water to the regional treatment plant might be funded in
:i January 1976, and (3) it was too early to tell whether the
company would be able to comply with the July Y, 1977,
deadline.

- EXAMPLE NO. 9, PRODUCER OF CHLORINE AND:CAUSTIC
SODA--FINAL-GUIDELINES LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN .
SOME OF THE PERM1IT EFFLUENT LIMITS

The company, located in Wisconsin, produces chlorine and
caustic sodaby electroiysis using mercury cells. The
:: : company: discharges its waste water inco the Wisconsin River,
which is designated as effluent limited. The company applied
for a discharge permit under the old Refuse Act program in
November 1971. Region V issued the company an NPDES permit
~< > on September 28, 1973, which expires on 'Tulv 31, 1978.
; .::Wisconsin modified the permit in October 1974.

Basis. for effluent. limitations

EPA final guidelines were published after issuance of
the permit. The permit effluent:limits for suspended solids
and pH were based on EPA :interim guidance. The limits for

APENDIX iI APPENDIX 11.

mercu rv and residual chlborine~ were or3.ainal y based on E-PA
national p6qicy but were subsequeh~tly modified at the
ipermittee ~s. request.'

Efluent limitations

The~ following tabl e shows the permit effluent limits an d-
'the~ ef fluent limits contained in EPA's. final guidelines.

Discharge limitations
Fz~a date of
pennit until~ Frcdt 1-01-77: -r A f inal1
12-31-76 until 7-'31-78 quidelines
- Daily iDaily Dail Daily Daily Da3ily
(2Caracteristic ave-ra-ge Ma=IM avrag rrxi= 'mer-e nemmnt
(kilograms)

Net suspended~solids 270; 540 46 92 99 198

Mercury,~ .060 .136 .045 .091 .045 -9

Fesidual chlorine v-arying lev~els a151 a1 N/A WA

pH .6to 9 6 to 9 6to 9

Tarerab.1re - - -- Max. 5'F -N/A I-A
increase,
at~edg
* of mixing

* 50% of
* ~~river or
1,000ft

of
sdiscarge

* ~~Compliance schedule.

The permit contained the fol lowling compliance sched4ule.

ReportC of proqress - March 31, 1974
competio of inalplans December 31, 19741
Coimmence constructibn June 30, 19~75
~Report of construction
progress *- -March 31,.1976
Completion of construction, Sep'tember. 30, 1976
A~ttainm~ent of operational level December 31, 1976~

: APPENDIX:II I APPENDIX II

:Adherence to permit conditions and
- ;-:enforcement actions

The company failed to submit a notification'of completion
'of final plans by December 31; 1974, and the State issued a
notification of noncompliance.on February 13, 1975.

On October 27 and 28 1973, the company'exceeded its
daily maximu- limits for mercury. EPA issued an administra-
tive order on December 1, :1973, and on December 28, 1973,
the company replied that necessary corrections had been
made. On February 12, 1974, another order was issued which
dealt with excess mercury which occurred on January 4, 1974.
The order required the company to use extended sampling
procedures and report. the results vwhen.any one part of a
24-hour sample exceeded the daily maximum mercury limit. On
June 10,1:l974, another order was issued citing the many
violations of pH and-residual chlorine limits and the
failure of the company to submit reports explaining the
noncompliance. The compary replied on June 24, 1974, out-
lining the difficulty it had in meeting the compliance
requirements, its belief that it had been complying with
reporting requirements, and its opinion that the pH and
chlorine limits could not be reasonably met. On July 3, 1974,
it requested changes in the initial chlorine and pH limits.
� and a schedule for achieving the original final limits on
chlorine earlier than originally scheduled. These requests
were approved, and the permit was modified on October 5, 1974..
A letter from EPA on February 27, 1975, indicated it was
satisfied with the company! s coupliance with the administra-
tive order and planned no. further enforcement action.

Company cox-ents

;: ': A company official said his main criticism of the
permit program was that.maximum effluent limits were overly
strict and that some violation of the limits was almost
:inevitable because of fluctuations in the production process.e
This official stated that the only construction currently
underway was for pH treatment and completion was expected
about June -30, 1975. He stated that the company had spent
$2 million on pollution control and had added two people
to handle the monitoring and reporting requirements. In
his opinion, EPA and the State failed to consider -whether
the reduction in pollution to be achieved was worth the
cost..

.: APPENDIX II..-. APPENDIX I

' : :EXAMPLE. NO, 10, M'ANUFACJURE :OF PAPER PRODUCTS--FINAL
:. GUIDELINES PUBLiSEjD AFTER ISSUANCE OF PERMIT WERE
NOT APPLICABLE TOPERMITTEE'S 5EPRODUCTS AND
ADJUDICATORY HE-AR . ING.A P ENDING .

The company, a manUfactUrer of paper products, is located
: in Wisconsin and discharges into the Fox Rive/, designated
effluent limited. The company applied for a discharge. permit
: under the Refuse Act in Mlarch 1971. Wi.sconsin.issued an NPDES
pe:. rmit to the compZany on March 22, 1974. The -permit expires
on December 31,: 1978. '

Basis for effluent limitations

Final EPA guidelines were not available for the indus-
't ry when the permit was issued, and the effluent limits were
. based on EPA interim guidance and State standards. EPA
.published final guidelines for-the pulp and paper industry
in May.1974 but according to an EPA official were not
' applicable tothe type of paper product manufactured by the
ccmpany.

: Effluent limitations

-The permit contained the following effluent limits
which had tO be met within the specified: time frames.

: Limitations�
Daily 'Daily
Characteristic average maximum Basis
.....0 t-:- (kilograms)

(Mar. 22, 1974- June 30, 1977)

BOD5 7,795 23,390 State order
' -: Suspended solids 9-140 27,'410 State order
pH :6 to 9 EPA interim guidance

;-gS -' (July 1,' 1977- Dec. 31, 1978)

BOD5 2,630 8,040 EPA interim guidance
Suspended solids 2,6e0 8,040 EPA interim guidance
Settleable solids - a0.1 EPA interim guldance.
: ; ; pH ::t 0 X6*:Gto 9 EPA interim guidance

The permittee was also required to initiate a study to deter-
: mine themeasures to be taken to comply.with Wisconsin water
.quality standards for tenperature-mixing-zone guidelines.

:;r C5 k . \ 0 - 0 j f : :

APPENDIX II APPENDIX I1

;S Compliance schedule:

Because the company was not meeting final effluent limits
when the permit was issued, the following compliance schedule
was made part of the permit..

' ' Progress report . September 30, 1974
Preliminary plans March 31, 1975
Final plans December 31, 1975
'!* : : :Commence construction June 30, 1976
Complete construction March 31, 1977
Attain operational- level June 30, 197:

'0 ::Thermal study:
Preliminary report' - December 31, 1974
::! : :Progress report- June 30, 1975
- Progress report - Mrch 31, 1976
Final report September 30, 1976

Appeal of permit conditions

� : On May 14, 1974, the company requested anadjudicatory
hearing in whichit chailenged the following permit conditions:

1. The definition of best practicable treatment for
. ; ;various types of pulp and paper plants.

2. Effluent limitations for BOD an( suspended solids.

0 '0 3. Mo itoring requirements.

According to region V, the State and the company signed
a stipulation on March 4,.1975, and a modified permit, issued
on May 26,. 1975, allowed net effluent limitations and'
increased the allowable discharge of suspended solids.

Adherence to permit conditions

No permit violations had been noted.

f~ff - j- : , f: ~ '0 ' S .: 66

APPENNDIX I1I PPDI III

-TEN X.,_MPLES OF MUNNICIPAL~ NPDES P-E-11ITS

The 10 exam~ples ediscussed below.'are representative of -
the 120' municial eI ts .included i~n our s ample. The
exampe hglighted individial in'stanzces. of progress and
problems of irmplementing~ the NPDES -permit~ program as
discussed in the boev of the repo_-t..

The glossary of terns, and definitions in appendixc IV
will be helpfuldn, understaiiding,'the effluent limitations
contained in the perm'ts.

EXANPLE NO. l-I NT CAPABLE OF MEETI'ncG JULY -1, 1977,
WATER QUALITY. REQ_ IRaENITIS WITHOUT UPGRADINIG

The municipal wasta water treat~ment plant is located in
Wisconsin and disclharges into a rivcer which is classified as
'water~ quality~ limlited The plant has a treatment capacity.
ofl 4.3 5 million gallons a day and -was designed to obtain 93
percent BOD and SO percent, suspended! solids removal.

The-muni~ci~pality su-britted 4its permit application on
Septemrber 19,~ I97,z and the State issued a NPDES' permit on
October 30, ~1974. The vermittee is able oacivreuired
effluent limits, 'but the permit expires on'June 30, 1977, to
.:coincide with. a pl!anned basin study forL the area.

i~E~f fluent limitations

Th, ~facility must maintairf the followinxg effluent
limitations.

Limitations
Monthly . Weekly
Characteristic . average avera~e*

-Out fall 0 01:

BOD5 2 0 mg/P _.31m/
Suspended soiid4 .20 mpg/I . 0 g/
Fecal coldfr 0/0 ml 400/100 ml
pH ~~~~~~~~~6 to 9

Outfall; 002 (byzs~

Fecal cali:f or 401/100. mal

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

' 'Enforcementactions

The BNovmber 1974 discharge monitoring report indicated
the treatmentplant exceeded its monthly average for
suspended solids :and had not: reported suspended ol1ids on.
a daily basis. The State had requestei inllormation from its
district office concerning the violation, but the matter was
unresolved as of February 27, 1975. A municipal official
said the plant had difficulty meeting the suspended solids
limits during wot weather, but he did not considerit a
serious problem. Wisconsin officials told us in November
1975 that, on the basis of recent dlischarge monitoring
reports, the discharger-was now in compliance with the
permit limitations.

Mui . . cipal comments

A municipal official told us that he believed the permit
limits were reasonable-and that the facility should be able
* to comply.: This official was optimistic about the NPDES
program and felt the time frames were reasonable. He said
that another good feature of the program was that it forces
industries to more closely monitor their discharges into
inmunicipal, facilities and as a result they are watching their
water usage more closelyv.

EXAMPLE NO. 2--FUNDING PROVIDED FOR UPGRADING
TREATMENTI PLAIT BUT NOT PROVIDED FOR IMPROVING
COLLECTION SYSTEM

Th~ municipal waste water treatment plant, located in
- Illinois,: discharges into the East Fork of the La Moine
Rivet, designated water quality limited. On April 23, 1973,
:. 0- fwher the municipality applied for a discharge permit, it was
..operating a .5 million gallons a day facility which was
- obtaining 30 tc 65 percent BOD removal. RegicI V issued a
NPDES permit on July 12, 1974. It expires February 28, 1979.

* Effluent limitations

The following effluent limitations, based generally on
u* 'State standards, were to be achieved in the time frames
specified..

:::-_; - . ..68

C~aatr~ ~ Interir.

- 4 mg
Suspended slis mg/ r-CI
An--nianitrog W eehua-
Reidualhlre- 0.75 R1911
Feca2.6lioi 20-,/100 m *d .200/00
pF 6to9 ~~~~~6to9

The municipality ha'c received a Federal constructicn.
* grait on Jure I0 1973.~ and an additional' crant on
* Febr-ua jy11 1974. When the permiti~ w as issued, construction
Lo ew~ acilitzes was already underway.. ~The, following
com~llan elschedule, included in the perit, was an estimate
of the t- me :needed t6oCM,016e~ecngoing construction.

Progress rep-ort December 31, 1974
* . . ~~~~Complete construction - March 31, .1975
-Attai prtional level May 31-75

.Al& the mnun-icipa-lity needs~ to- improve its. collection
system. This project, ho7weve, srankd39oto99
p~o~cts n- te- fscalyear 1975 State -p'ibrity-li~stf and
F edieral g ~rant funds are not currently. avwailable for thle

-.Enforc'ement actions

As of April. 8, 197.5, EIPA had. not recei-,1e- the progress
report due 'on December 31, 974, and; the discharg~e monitoring
-report due ~on January 28, 19575.~ :As~of Apri1. 1975, EPA
appareift~ly ~had- taken no fol-l owup action -to. deterrmine why,
~these reports ~had not- een subm-itted.-

Acolng to tegion V on -Jul 17, 19,7:, the region

sent the permittee a notjfic~ttion of ~nor-_bmvliance letter
-requiring submission of the: discharge monitoring rep~orts and
a rort on! comr-Idtion of construaction. The nerrniteecm
plied or, July 2 1975-, ltu beause- the dischare 'tar
repo~tswere incerrectl 'filled a- it a e e r ia~sn'
tote P,.crmitte-0nuut20 95 n the reports were
resubmiltted' .orr-eftly filled out. The~emte taied
the new operationa level in accordance ith r c r-rmi t
requirement_.~

APPENDIX. IT APENDIX III

EXAMPLE ~NO-.. 3--'PERM4ITTEE ISSUD SHORT-TERM PERMIT
? AND REQUIREUL' TO APP LY: FOR FUND ING OF BYPASS
"WASTE TREATMENT

Telmun,~icipaliwaste water~'treatnient~~plant, located Inl
* I~~llinois~, has a tre'atment capacity of -3.4 million gallons a
* ~~dav and discharges',into the-Ro k'River, which is Classified
as water quality'limited. Application,.L.or a discharge permvit
* ~~~was subamitted on May 7Y, 1974, and, region V issued a NPDES~
* ~~permit to the muiiplty onJuy31, 1974. The permit
expires. February i,~ 1977.

Eff luent limi tat ions

The treatm~ent jilant mustimeet the f ol]%-wing State water
~quality-standards.

30-day 7-day
a rit� tic - a arithmetic rreXM
Characteristic Concentration Weiqht Concentration Wegh

20 Irg/l 258 kg/day 30 nig/l

Suspndedsolids 25 pgJ1 322 kg3/day. 38 PKVI

Fecal co1ifolm 200/100 nl -400/100 rml

pH 6.tj-9 at all tires

Triere slhall he no discharge of floating solids or visib.'e fo~ri in othc-r
than tr aceo;ts

(The weight limits in the prmnit %reca--te usix= the cOncL rto
lilits (expressed inzxg/l) and the designs flodw of~ 3.4 million gallons a
day-)

Copliance schedule

The following -comaplianc-e schedule was'included in the
permit for bypass waste treatment.

* ~~~~~~~~a1 ~Permittee shall form-ally apply for necessary
*grant funds to provide the -necessary bypas
waste treatrient within two months. after the
* ffective dtofhis permiat if application
has not been filed previously.

Wb) Permittee mnust prcvidt- optimum operation and
m-aintenance'ef the existing waste treatment
facility and the, maximum practical flow Shall

APPENDIX III ~~~~~~APPEN'DIX III.

1he conveyed to S.he t r eatm e nt, faclt Y to
nroduce~as hihqaiyOf effluent as
reasonably possible.

0c) Permittee upon receipt of grant funding
prior to expiration of this per tit. shall
achieve com-plian.Me 'with; required effrluent
limitations in accordance with the
* following sc-nedule:~
1)Sub-mit prel'iminary plafis wi-hin 3
months after receipt of Step 1
funding.
2) Submit final plans and spcifications
w Ith i n 9 --onths after rec~ipt of
Step II '11ding.
* 3), -Co=,ence construction within 3 months
afte receipt cof Step !II funding.
4~ Subr'.t a construction progress repr
* *. ~6 F.011ths after start of construction.
5) Complete cons~truction within 12
months after start of construction.
G)~ Opiration,2l level atta_-ned I month
* '~after .compp.et.-i~n of construction_`

Ohi September 30. 19714, the ;municipality requested and'
received a 60-da exeso for ccp neith the schedule.
The_ municiPa~lity submitted a '9rant Application to the State
in Nvme 94

En1forcement ac tion1S

-On- January 3~ 1975, region V notified the~_muri'-ipalltyl
that its discharge Monitoring report showed that ilt had
* slightl ~xceede& that permit limits for BOD, an6 -.V-spended
* solids. lAlso, the municliaali-ty failed ~to'rep,3rt the level
of reida chlorince iniits discharge-. 'The mu-nicipallityI
responded on Januiary~ 8, 1975, that It ha rste anUxm
daily test vralues for ROD, and suspended ;salids rather thain
the.-arithmetic mean and that the. *7.ilure to report the le7ei
* c ~~esiua1 chlrne was an, oversight.

'~r~cioalty~ cmn ts -

,~Iulici~pai officials told Is -that tbe bicgest problemn
-ih: the NPbzS n--Oq ~_ wal BIs the mn-nitarino an" reporting
~quire~ents. Te-' sal thIat coiorn wa3 a fall da-y'
job an d vI.as. a turcen cn their three-nian staff. They also,
.fe It a simpler s-.-stericculd -e~deVe1-p~ed to 're~port effluents
~a the' than. tsi q the ar-ith11metic mean. They -sa-id, . hcwever,
* hey ,,ere next havinc azn se ocus -rcLema in etnth

JR*

N, 2E
IOU, Fiji.,
Al"

7 A*4, Ile

aup

Fop,

EXAMPJE: NO. 4--SEOTrT EM; PERMIT ISSUED;
Ef:D : :: IS UNLIKELY FOR NEEDED UPGRADING -

Thie municipal :waste water treatment plant. located in
Wisconsin discharges into a creek designated as water quality
.limied. The State. issued the municipality a permit on
:--- '0 sOctober 30, 197'4. The permit expires on April 30, 1977. The
. unicipality was.. number 115 out of 515 projects on the fiscal
year 97: S;:tate priority list but-only. the. first 80 projects
were-expected to 'be f uhded.

: B:Easis for effluent limitations

T:e S :ta: e based the perm-it li.tations on th. .treatent
plant's current capability.

Ef: . fluent limitations

: The ermit prescribes thefollowing effluent limitations.

IV. . Weekly

(rite a) (not� a)

* 1,324 kg/day 140 rg/l ' 1,986 kg/day 210 rg/1
suspem'f solids 1,S91 kg/day 200. n/l ' 2,837 k-;/day 300 "_Jl
.Fel colifm.- 200/100 nil . 400/100 ml

These.limizts, based co a design flc of 2.5 milliun ga llon a day.

"Compliance schedule.'

No c npliance schedule w as included i _the permit,
because it 'was ,;_likely a. Federal construction .grant would
be 'received..

Enf orfem -n ac tis

. Th-e ere were no violations of the permit as of Febr ary 27,.
" 1975.- ' Reaibn V said on' November 19, 1.975, tt the prmittLee
experiencdc some .roblems -ith.its chlorinator during July .
and August 1975 b t that.'these problems-have now been
corre : cted:

'72
0~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ - -- :f>:aei a sleFa-Fdea osroin.gatlG;l

AMP'NI Ml P~IX IUV~

EXAMPLEo.5-EITE AwARDED A C0NSS`TRUCTTIO.4
GRNT ANDPROGRESSING :TOWARricrFX r9 xgtrwINTM

The~ municipal waste:watertramnpltocedi
Pelnn'sylvania, was operating a 1.0 million gallons A day
primary treatment facility. The municipa-lity 'applied for
a' NPDES permit, an April IS, 1973, and 'region, 11.1 i smied 'a
S5-year NDES permit to the municipality on March 31, 194.

Basis for effluent limitations]

The permtit r6qluired the m:Vun icinaIi ty. to achieve
secondary treatment not later than July 1,~1977.

'Effluent lmitations

:The permpit ~prescrbe tefollowing effluent limitations.

A-verae teffluent =ccntrntrataon Amera- ef fbrtt 1o~4.
30- cs,--tive 7-ccrsecutve
C2iar.-cteristic dayperiods S~ .f=E 30,corsecuative day period~

interim ef fluent
limlitatia's:

BCE5 ~~~130 g/ .195 rw.,8 t/a 88 kg/day
suspenda
solids :130 nnJl 195 ng/l 1, 030 lbs/da 438 kg/day
Fe i
Colifonn 200p/100 mil 400/l'0' nml-
pH - Eto 9at all ti.-rs

Final ef flumt
linitaticrs

ECD ~~ 30 ag/1 4 5 rag/I 250~ Its/day- 114 kgday
silid 30 Ug/I 45.rq_/I 250 lbs/day 14kgda

colifomr 2/1-0 a I 400/'100 ml.
ph'H- bto 9at all tizes

Com,~Ii~a nc e schedule

The =unicinalitv had received a Federal construction1-
grant on March 22, 1'973, to utnurade its Plant to secon-dary
treatment. No compliance schedul e was contained in the
permit alt-hougah th-e grarnt was awarded before p~er-mit issuance.
'the mmunicipality was required to submit a compliance schedule

-73

� APPE0NDIX:.Ii . II APPENDIX III

. ; i by October 30, 1974, but this schedule was not submitted
' :. :'-wui til Januarry 9, 1975. The consulting engineers told
� i:_ _ :reg: :sion_ III that construction started July 15, 1974. They
' expected construction- to be completed by September 30,
1975, and final e ffluent limitations to be achievied by
October 30,: 1975. :

t : Enforcement actions

The municipality had not submitted all required
discharge monitoring reports.' A report that was submitted
: howed at least one: effluent limit was exceeded. Region III
- tconsidered the violations to be minor and took no ernforcement
: action. - �
:XAMPLE OQ. 6--UNREALISTIC 5-YEAR PERMIT

'' . : The municipal authority, located in Pennsylvania,
operates a primary treatment plant designed for a flow of
'f . ;1:12 million gallons a day.: It applied for a NPDES discharge
- permit on September 27, 1973. Region III issued a 5-year:
permit to the authority on June 26, 1974. Because Federal
construction funds are not available, it is unlikely the
: authority will be able to meet the 197. requirements.

Basis-for ef�ituent limitations

The permit required thle municipal authority to achieve
* secondary treatment by September 30, 1976.

Effluent lim.1itatiorns

';I -�;: .::- ': : The authority was to achieve the following interim and
final eff luent limitations.:

� - _: . ,- .. . :

verpa~ge -ef flunt,

30-consecu.tive 7-consecutimv
c~ar~terisic da perod dyprxI30-cmnse-cutivae' dy period

* ~~~~Interfr. ef fluent

120 r-3-/1 120 nJ 12000 ltcs/day_ 5,400 kg/day

* ~~~solids 70 nX/ ~105 rrg/I .7,000 Ilbsday''3,150 k/a
Fecal
* ~~~Colift-,tm a-200'aS r am/loo0 in].
pH~~~6c 69 at all- ties,
Final effluent_

BW 30 mgI ~45 mg/I 3,'000 Ibs/day 1,350 kg/day

Solids 30 mq/I 45 rmg/l .3,000 lbs/day 1,350 k/a

colifonn a2OQ/lcW ml NA/~0100 -ml -
p11 :6to.9at all t.ies
*Dissolved
c~yge . Miiruiiof S nq/3. at all tiftes
aShalL-rpt exceed 1,000/100ml'1in 10, percent of szrles taken durring
spec-ified time period.

Comnplianc~e schedu~le .
by The compliance schedule required construction' to begin
yDecember 31, _1974, and: be completed by June 30, 1976.

'shen the .permit -was issued, the authority's project- ~a-s
* ~~ranked 113 on~ the Pennsylvania ~ 'iscal yer 5 15roritx'
list of 192 projecis.~ Them p~ro ject did, not receive .;Funds in
* fiscal year 1975, 'and t was: not on A tentatv elit of,
* ~~projects fuindable in fiscal year 19761.

* ~~~Ragion, III told-us it plann~ed to amezn8 the present
-L pemtafter negotiation -to- develop oeresnbecplae
dates: aso, if egislatve relif from the 1977 requi rements
was not provided in the interin, *the tem. of the: permit would
46b shortened to ccn-ply with -PA h'a6datespoiy

7r 5

....: 1I : APPENDIX IIi ' APPENDIX III

Enfor cement actions

: Fecal colifor test results' were not- being reported to
. EPA in the discharge monitoring :reports, because the
municipal authority did not have equipment needed for making
.: ::the tests. Region Ill told tlhe authority. hat-it-was not
complyi-ng %with the discharge monitoring reporting require-
ments and an outside laboratory. should be used to make the
fecal coliform tests if the authority did not -have the
equipment needed.

';- - ;. Municipality's cnments f .

A representative of the municipal authority said the
authori ty shad spent- $173S,000 .for plans and specifications
to upgrade the plant to secondary treatment. These plans
:-wexe submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
: Mentza- Resources, but they were not submitted to region III
' beca--se the project was below the funding line. The
authority is currently paying off construction debts for the
- present plant and will not go forward with construction
required; o achieve secondary treatment until a Federal
grant is awarded. The representative also said that,.
: since Federal funding was not available, it. would be
impossible for the authority- to meet the July -], 1977,
deadline..

- EXAMPLE: NO. 7--UNREALISTIC PERMIT

Te m -unicipal authority, located in Pennsylvania,
_ 0 operates a .5 million gallons a day primary treatment plant.
. They applied for a perm it on May 21, 1973, and region III
issued a 5-year NPDES perm't on March, 19F,. 1974. Because
Federal construction :funds were not available, it is unlikely
t he authority will achiev secondary treatment by July 1,
1977.

Basis for effluent limitations:

The permit requires- the. treatment plant to achieve
secondary: treatment by July-i, 1977

E-ffluent limitations

: The permit imposed the following interim and final
* ; effluent limitations.

76
'::f f:00000;::0;;::ff~f00::'?fff::j:fffff :fff~ C\00ftV 0:0:::Dff : ff::f: :0:-0:::000;::,00:Ddi .:0 fff f , f : 0 :d:0: :0 - i :

APPENDIX III APPENDIX III

AN" zage efflumft vrgeeffluent
CM=Mnt-rations __________

0mracteristic byro a eiddypro~d

* ~~Interi effluent
limitations:
* DOD5 130 mg/i% 195 Mg/l 542 lbs/day 244 kg/day
Suzpended
solids 130 mg-/I 195 WIJ '542 Ubs/day 24 4Tog/day
Fecal.
*colifon~ 200/loo'ml 400/100m:. -
pH~~~: 6to 9at an tiz

Fnleft.l unt

* 0 19l 5 g/ 188. Ur/day 85 kg/day

solids ~3~ OW/ 4.5 UU/Is 188 ds/ay 85 kg/day
Fecal
clifonji 200/10 ml 4010m
~PH 6. to 9 at.al-Itime

Compliance ~schedule

The uthoie'~was equredt submit a compliance
sche-ule to regir-,z -ill Within'6 months of the permit's
effectiv~e-datep showing-actions and dates to be. taken to
achievesecondry treatment.~ On ~Decme 9,l7 2 months
af ter the schedule was due, EPA notified the authority, by
letter that it had 5 days to submit the-reauired schedule.,
The authority's~ consulting- firm submittedla schedule, which
~indicated compliance by June ~1977; however, the schedule was
conditional ona Federal gra~nt being offered by~ January 1975.

When the permit was, iss ed, the project was ranked 118
on the Pennsylva~nia f isc.al yea .19-75 priority list of 192
projects.Te, project asnot fundable in f iscal, year 1975
* ~~and Was-.not included on a tentative list of projects. fundable

.Enfbrcement acti-Ons

As of April; 7,' 1975, the au ty had ~not submitted a
.discharqe :honitoring report. A representative of the
authority said it did not have the equipmien-t required to
'make the -fecalI colif-or test.i Also, the plant .was'
experiencIrng a flcw r"reater than that allov ~d by the permit.

- 77~~~~~~

APPENixDIX Il

~':'~;' Region IIIrhadn not accepted the submitted compliance
~ . fschedule, but we'were told that the-regio planned to
termidnatei the present permit and to isasue a new permit
�, ' . which would expire on June 30, 1977.

: nicipaity's comments ' '

The authority told us that it spent $80,000 for plans
- and specifications to upgrade the plant to seconary treat-
ment. The plansand specifications- had been submitted to the
.... Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources but not
to region IIl because the project was below the funding line
on thz, project priority list. The.authority will- not pay
off the construction indebtedness for its present plant until
. 2000, and it: will not proceed with secondarytreatment
- construction until it receies a Fe deral construction grant.

EXAMPLE NO. 8--tUNEALISTIC PERMIT

-- T he municipal authority, - cated in Pennsylvania,
operates a primary treatment plant designed for an average
flow of .16 mTillion gallons a day. The authority applied-
f .or a permit on May 14, 1973, and region II issued a
: . ;- ::- 5-year NPDES permit on - November 13 ,.'1974. .Because Federal
construction funds were not available, the authority
probably :will not meet the 1977'requirements.
- :, : I- : - .- .: � : . . : ' . .. - .
Basis for effluent limitations -
0: -.a 0 ; f : . . - . f - f S
. 'iS :Eff!uent imitations were based parcly on State
effluent requireaents which ekre higher than secondary
treatment levels. The authority was required to achieve
- these treatment levels by -July. 1, 1977.
:: . . : :. .-
Effluent .limitaticns : . ' :

_" finai effluent limitations.
: D ATf 0:: :. - _ . ::: -: . .:
- . . EffJu'ene. ,~ta~i~:s~blere . . -;. , gi S . Q
:.f: f:; 0 St ff 0 S X : 0 ' -S :::: : . ' - -' f ' . ': . :

_ ::_:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX III APNI I

~~ effb~~t Average ef flumt

Interim ef fluent

BMS~ ~ 13 i1/ 5 TVls 325 lbs/fay 148 kg/day
susran~ed
solids 130 mg/i 195 nm/1 325 lbs/day 148 kgday.
Fecal
colifcmi 20/~ ml 400/10 l

F~iial effluent'

BCD-total
(no~te a), 50 mgi so Vq1 125 lbs/day 56.7 kg/day
Stwperled
solids 25roan 25 g/I- ~63 lbs/dayr 28.6 kg/day

colifonn, 200/1100 ml 400/100 ml
pH 6~~~to 9at au t;ieS
Dissolved
cygwen~ A mfnilmz of 5: mg/I at all 1-ines
OBCO--t.otal is~ a,, State-ioe limit. that is nure stzrqment, than a,.

compliance schedUle

BY June 13, 1975, the authority was~ requi~red to submit
to region III a compliance schedule to meet the. 41977
requirements.

The authority applied ,for a Federal construction grant
to upgrade its- plant to~ meet permit requirements. The
project wars ranke-d 149 on the Pinnsylvania fiscal year 197-
project priorityr list. Federal funding-was not- adequat-e t-o
reach this project, becau'se the available funds covered only
the first 58 projects. A t1-entative priority list for fiscal
year 1976 indicates this project again may not be fne
because it is rank-ed too low.

cip Is covat

An authority of ficial ~told us on may 13,"1975, that it
did not- plan to take any additional action to meet the permit
requirements for July 1, 1977;,until it received a Federal
construction grant.

- 79

EXAMPLE NO' 9--FIVE-YEAR PERMIT COMPLIANCE
- PROBABLE ALTHOUGH. FEDERL GRANT WAS DELAYE- D

~' ' The area. joint sewer authority, located' in Pennsylvania,
.operates a 1.0 million gallons a day primary treatment plant.
The authority applied for a permit for its present plant on
April 19 19s3. Region. III issued a 5-year NPDES permit on
January 30, 0974. The authority is under orders by the State
to uprade to secondary treatment and plans to do this by
- . onstrucdting a ew plant and phasing out the present plant.

The authority applied for Fecral construction grant
funds to build: a new treatment plant. The State Department
of Environmental Resources certified the project to region
III on April 23, 1973. :The project was-included on the
Pennsylvania fiscal year 1974 priority list and sufficient
Federalfunds were available to'fund this project. However,
it was June 5, 1975, before region III approved the project
and.made a grant offer to the authority.

The.project could not be funded until EPA approved the
State's project priority list for fiscal year 1974. Such
�* -.approval was not given until January 1974.- The project was
ifurther delayed because of the need to resolve a design
capacity question for the proposed treatment plant and to
obtain agreements between the authority and. adjacent
cotmiunities which plan to. use the new plant.

Effluent limitations

:: The authority was oniy required to maintain at least
':'their present level of effluent quality. Region III,
however, did not know the quality of the effluent, because.
-: information onthe permit application was inadequate.

' '� 0:The primary treatment plant was to stop discharging
:effluent as soon as possible but not later than July 1, 1977.

Compliance schedule

Region III gave the authority 6 months to submit a
compliance schedule showing constructiontime frames for
- the new plant. The schedule was not submitted, however,
Decause the authority contended a realistic schedule could
:-not be develoDed until it received a Federal construction
grant. Region Ili's Enforcement Division referred the
authority's failure to submit the compliance schedule to
A-its Legal Branch but no legal action'was taken.

APPENDIX III - APDIX I

'A region IIpriprgaofiiltlusteperi
was, actu'aUyueocelebaue( iti n cnai
specif ic inei fletTntto~and (2) -a ealiatic
complin~ce sk~edue ~coul o be etbisihed, untila Federal
grant was made-. Region Ii of fed a construction grant to
the authority on Junie 51973 and plannedt treissue-the
pe rMt to include Specific itrim effu ent limtatioais and:
a realistic complianice schedle.a

Auth~i or3~comment-s

An-auth-ority representative told :us that since a con-
sruction g rant has b~een aaddheutoiy Ihud be
Able to coanstruct .the new treatment Plant by July -1,~ 1977.

EXA~LENO. l0 --EALIS~iC 5-YV..R -PEFOIT

Temunicipal authority', located, in eansyivania,
operated a 2. 0 million gallons a day primary treatment plrant.-
The authority applied for a 'permit on March 21,_ 1974, and
re~nIII issu`ed a 5-year Dfixmitf on Aug'ust 28, l~'74.~ The
permi t 'required the authority ito achieve a highr- than
* secon~~dary levei of treatment by March'31,. 1975.

Ef fluent lini4tations

-The permit prescribed the f 61lowing int~erim atnd final

Avearag ef ial it Averae effluent

30-cwzeautive 7-cns tive 30-i~asecutive
chaxac i teristic ~d adypxo

la'tatinn,
65 mg/I 98 mg-/l 160l/dy74 kg/day

sold 65 mJll9 m/ 1,630 lbs/day 734 kag/day

cbli~fom 1 200/100 ml. 400/100 mL-1
pH ~ ~~~ 6tcl.9 a-alI timas

inleffuent

BM) 20 mgi20 mgI 50ls/a 2 g/da

so-jids 20 Mg/l 20 Mg/ 500 lbs-/day 227 kg/day
Fecal oI i fo6zmn 20O~0 00m1 -400/100 ml- -
pH 6to~~~9atalVtimes

:APPENDIX III : . . - APPENDIX III

-Compliance sch. aule. . . : . . -

�:: .: The authority was awarded a Federal construction grant
;:. on August 28, .1972, to upgrade their primary treatment plant.
Construction was in process When the permit was issued and
the following compliance schedule was contained in the permit.

: .. Begin construction September 30, 1974
Complete construction Decembgr 31, 1974
Attain final limitations March 31, 1975

Adherence to permit conditions:

k.I found no evidence that the authority had notifie-
region III as to whether the final limitations had been.
achieved, as required. The first discharge monitoring report
which :would show .the upgraded plant- performance compared to
the permit limitations was; not due until after we completed
our review.

Municipality s comments

- The consulting engineer of the municipal authority told
us that construction was Completed and the new plant had been
operational since January 1975.

f ' - .. - :E 0 0 E D | 0 0 f; - f: j AX 82

:0 : .f f f 0 i :: . ; 0 ' ':. 0: : . '8:

~APPENDIX -kV A~NI

GLCS SAPRY OF TIERMS
AND DE DI I T 10

Biochemical oxygen demand A-measure ot the amount o:,
(BOD. oxygen Consumed i n the b io-
loqiCal pro--esses ~that break
down orgainic~ matter in water.
Large amounts of orcanic waste
use up large amounts of dis-
Solved O.Kyceli. thstegeater
te degree 0. .111lutinl the
greater the U )D.

BOD5 ~~~~~~~The ~awount of dissolved oxygen
consiumed in 5 davs bv. biological
* ~~processes breakizq dvwn organic
ma. ter in an~ effluen-.

Chemical' oxygen-demand A measure of the amount of
~(COD) o.-ygen required to oid,-ize
* ~organic and oxidizable inorganic
* compounids. in. water.

Dissolved oxygen The oxygen dissolved in water
or -4p Adecjuateiy-dis-
soli ed, oxygen is~ere-ssary ~for
thl-a life of fish and o~ther
aquat'ic ori~arisms anda for the
* ~~prevention of offensive OUO'-.'S
'Low dissolved ox~ygencoen
* trations qener~ally~are due to:
discharg oexcessive organic
* solids la ing high BOD, the
* ~~result of indqaewaste
treatment.
Dissolved~~~~~~l tolisth oal amount of dissolve
mater_,ai- orqanic -an.: inorganic,
contained inwa-te ~or wastes.
E e s s i vea dissblved~ solds make
water unizalatabl-. for drinkiig
and1 un-suitable for inustrial

Ef fl.ueint Ilim, tea - Any segen, fa water Dai
where wte uality is meeting
and will continue to meet
applicable 'Water quality
standards or, where the water

-PPENDIX !7 . - APPENDIX IV

'if Efluent imied- quality willf M-eet water -quality
(con0tirnued),; s-.. .s:tandards ater the application
of effluent lim tations based
.0~~ ' :: : :-on best practicable control
technolog,-or secondary treat-

-Fecal coliform bacteria A group of organisms common to
;the intestinal tracts of man
and animals. The presence of
' -fecal coliform bacteria in
water is an indicator of
: ptentially dangerous bacterial
contamination.

kg :; . , kilogram.

kg/1- kilograms per liter.

mgd ;:.million gallons a day.

m /I milligrams per liter.

. milliliter .

: Organic Referring to or derived from
living organisms; in chemistry-
any compound containing carbon.

'. .00t-$000-0tpMH 't A m;easure. of the-acidity or alka-
linity of a material. pH is
.% -:0000: :; \ : :.:represented on a scale of 0 to
14 with; 7 representing a neutral
state, 0 representing the most
acid, and 14 the most alkaline.
Phenols A group of of organic- compounds
that in very low concentrations
produce- a taste and odor problem
' in water. In higher concen-
t srationst they are toxic to
- aquatic life.

; SettLeable solids o Bits of debris and fine matter
heavy enough to settle out of
waste water.

Suspended solids Small particles of solid pol-
lutants in sewage- that contribute
to turbidity and that resist
sepaa:tion by conventional -means.

:: : ? : 0; dXt3:0;X i 0 :0:' 00 784

6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

~'?�!....... -i~,C-- .
== APPEYDiX I' APPhE-DIX I%'

total suspended non Small particles. of Isolid
filt!~aable aolids TSS, .pollutant. in-sewage that
-'*' contrmibute to turbidity and
t hat resist separation by
�*i conventional meacs.

Water quality segpniCent A%-: segment of a water basin
where water quality does not
meet applicable water quality
- standerds and/or is not expected
to eet the standards even after
- *~ -the appl cation of effluent
limitati,:-ns based on best
practicable co.ntrol tech.nology
or secondary treatment.

85:

- : ' ' ' ' ' - .tr.

-A
hi

riP

t iLdLi

-5

AuUWU5l\EUU
3 6668 00001 7113