Water Pollution: Differences Among the States in Issuing Permits Limiting
the Discharge of Pollutants (Letter Report, 01/23/96, GAO/RCED-96-42).

GAO reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to
permit municipal wastewater treatment facilities to discharge pollutants
into surface waters, focusing on: (1) differences in how EPA and the
states control discharges of specific pollutants; and (2) EPA oversight
of state water quality standards and policies.

GAO found that: (1) controls over the discharge of pollutants in surface
waters vary by state; (2) differences in state water pollutant controls
are a concern to neighboring states that share water bodies; (3)
differences in state controls exist because surface waters differ
greatly throughout the country and EPA regulations allow for flexibility
in the way states assess and control water pollution; (4) EPA has
limited oversight of state water quality standards, since it does not
maintain sufficient information on state implementation policies or
assess the impact of variations among states and it reviews relatively
few permits; and (5) EPA plans to enhance its reviews of state
implementation policies and increase its emphasis on controlling
pollution within watersheds.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-42
     TITLE:  Water Pollution: Differences Among the States in Issuing 
             Permits Limiting the Discharge of Pollutants
      DATE:  01/23/96
   SUBJECT:  Water pollution control
             Toxic substances
             Licenses
             Environmental policies
             Environmental monitoring
             Water quality
             State-administered programs
             Industrial wastes
             Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
             EPA Permit Compliance System
             NPDES
             North Carolina
             New York
             West Virginia
             New Jersey
             Vermont
             Arkansas
             Oklahoma
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment and
Public Works, U.S.  Senate

January 1996

WATER POLLUTION - DIFFERENCES
AMONG THE STATES IN ISSUING
PERMITS LIMITING THE DISCHARGE OF
POLLUTANTS

GAO/RCED-96-42

Differences Among States' Discharge Limits

(160261)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-270462

January 23, 1996

The Honorable Max S.  Baucus
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment
 and Public Works
United States Senate

Dear Senator Baucus: 

The Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program limits the types and amounts of pollutants that
industrial and municipal wastewater treatment facilities may
discharge into the nation's surface waters.  The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), charged with administering the NPDES
program, has issued national guidance and regulations to assist the
states in establishing standards to protect the quality of their
waters and in issuing permits to facilities to limit discharges of
pollutants.  Both the act and EPA's regulations give the states and
EPA considerable flexibility in implementing the NPDES program. 

While the Clean Water Act requires all states to adopt water quality
standards, EPA authorizes qualified states to issue NPDES permits. 
Currently, 40 states have obtained such authority; in the remaining
10 states, the cognizant EPA regional offices issue the permits.  In
issuing the permits, the states' and EPA's permitting authorities may
(1) impose limits on the discharges of specific pollutants, (2)
require the facilities to monitor the levels of pollutants they
discharge, or (3) determine that no controls are warranted. 

As agreed with your office, our objectives in this review were to (1)
determine whether differences exist in whether and how the states'
and EPA's permitting authorities control pollutants in the discharge
permits they issue, (2) identify the causes of any differences, and
(3) obtain information on EPA's oversight of the states' water
quality standards and policies. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Controls over the discharge of pollutants into the nation's surface
waters differ from state to state.  Our analysis of the controls over
five toxic metals in 1,407 permits for municipal wastewater treatment
facilities showed that in some states, the permitting authorities
consistently established numeric limits on the discharges, while in
other states, the authorities consistently required monitoring.  In
some states, no controls were imposed.  In addition, the numeric
discharge limits for specific pollutants differed from state to state
and even within the same state for facilities of similar capacity. 
Such differences in the discharge limits, or in the standards and
policies used to derive these limits, have caused concern,
particularly where neighboring jurisdictions share water bodies and
the variations are readily apparent to interested parties. 

Differences among the states can be expected because of differences
in surface waters across the country\1 and because of flexibility in
the implementation of the pollutant discharge program provided for in
the Clean Water Act and EPA's regulations.  The permitting
authorities also differ considerably in the amount and type of data
they require to determine whether pollutants have a reasonable
potential to violate a state's water quality standards and, if so,
how extensively such pollutants need to be controlled.  Differences
in numeric discharge limits occur because both the water quality
standards and the policies for implementing these standards in the
permits differ among the states.  For example, the states have
adopted different implementation policies concerning several
technical factors that affect discharge limits, including the size
and location of the "mixing zones" where the discharges and the
receiving waters mix, the potential for dilution, and the background
concentration of the pollutants. 

EPA's oversight of the states' water quality standards and
implementation policies has some limitations.  Some states do not
include all of their policies for implementing their water quality
standards when they submit the standards for EPA's review.  In
addition, EPA does not maintain national information on the states'
implementation policies and, except for some regional efforts, does
not assess the impact of variations among the states.  In addition,
EPA reviews relatively few permits.  However, EPA is considering
regulatory changes that could enhance the agency's reviews of the
states' implementation policies.  In addition, EPA believes that an
increasing emphasis on controlling pollution within watersheds will
also eventually lead to greater consistency in the permits issued
within individual watersheds. 


--------------------
\1 Oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams differ in, among other things,
size, flow, temperature, chemical makeup, and the biological life
that they support. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 
The Congress established a series of national goals and policies to
achieve this objective, including what is referred to as
"fishable/swimmable" water quality.  That is, whenever attainable,
the quality of the water should be such that it provides for the
protection of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation in and on the
water.  To help meet national water quality goals, the act
established the NPDES program, which limits the discharge of
pollutants through two basic approaches--one based on technology and
the other on water quality. 

Under the technology-based approach, facilities must stay within the
discharge limits attainable under current technologies for treating
water pollution.  EPA has issued national minimum technology
requirements for municipal facilities and 50 categories of industrial
dischargers.  The states' and EPA's permitting authorities use these
requirements to establish discharge limits for specific pollutants.\2
In contrast, under the water-quality-based approach, facilities must
meet discharge limits derived from states' water quality standards,
which generally consist of (1) "designated uses" for the water bodies
(e.g., propagation of fish and wildlife, drinking water, and
recreation) and (2) narrative or numeric criteria to protect the
designated uses.\3 Narrative criteria are generally statements that
describe the desired water quality goal, such as "no toxics in toxic
amounts." Numeric criteria for specific pollutants are generally
expressed as concentration levels and target certain toxic pollutants
that EPA has designated as "priority pollutants."\4

In addition to adopting water quality standards, the states may also
establish policies concerning certain technical factors that affect
the implementation of the standards in the discharge permits.  For
example, many states have adopted policies for (1) establishing
mixing zones (limited areas where discharges mix with receiving
waters and where the numeric criteria can be exceeded), (2)
determining the amount of available dilution (the ratio of the low
flow of the receiving waters to the flow of the discharge), and (3)
considering background concentration (the levels of pollutants
already present in the receiving waters). 

When the states' and EPA's permitting authorities are deciding how
extensively the pollutants should be controlled in a facility's
permit, they first look to the technology-based standards.  If the
discharge limits derived by applying these standards are not low
enough to protect the designated uses of the applicable water body,
the permitting authorities turn to the state's water quality
standards to develop more stringent limits.  To achieve the tighter
limits, a facility may have to install more advanced treatment
technology or take measures to reduce the amounts of pollutants
needing treatment.  For additional information on the role of EPA's
headquarters and regional offices and the state agencies in
establishing standards and implementing them in permits, see appendix
I. 

As agreed with your office, this report focuses on the
water-quality-based approach to controlling pollution and the way the
states' and EPA's permitting authorities are implementing water
quality standards in the NPDES permits issued to "major"
facilities.\5 As of July 1995, approximately 59,000 municipal and
industrial facilities nationwide had received permits under the NPDES
program, and about 6,800 of these permits were for major facilities,
including about 4,000 municipal facilities and 2,800 industrial
dischargers. 


--------------------
\2 If technology standards do not exist for a particular industry,
the permitting authorities consider other pertinent data and use
their "best professional judgment" to establish the discharge limits. 

\3 In addition, the states are required to include an
"antidegradation" provision in their water quality standards to
ensure that in those water bodies where the quality exceeds that
required to support the designated use, the quality in general will
be maintained at the existing level. 

\4 As a result of a 1976 consent decree, EPA was required to publish
water quality criteria to protect human health and/or aquatic life
for a specified set of pollutants or classes of pollutants by 1979. 
The Congress later specifically designated these same chemicals as
toxic pollutants under section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act, and EPA
selected 126 key chemicals or classes within this group for priority
status.  For other, nonpriority pollutants, the states may choose to
adopt either numeric or narrative criteria. 

\5 EPA classifies certain facilities as major, usually on the basis
of their capacity and/or the type and quantity of pollutants they
discharge. 


   STATES' AND EPA'S PERMITTING
   AUTHORITIES VARY IN WHETHER AND
   HOW THEY CONTROL POLLUTANTS IN
   DISCHARGE PERMITS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Our review of the data on municipal permits for five commonly
discharged toxic pollutants disclosed that decisions about whether
and how to control pollutants differed both from state to state and
within states.  In some instances, differences in the limits
themselves, or in the standards and policies used to derive the
limits, have led to concerns between neighboring states. 


      SOME PERMITTING AUTHORITIES
      IMPOSE DISCHARGE LIMITS,
      OTHERS REQUIRE MONITORING
      ONLY, AND SOME IMPOSE NO
      CONTROLS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Using EPA's Permits Compliance System database, we extracted data on
the 1,407 permits issued to municipal wastewater treatment facilities
nationwide between February 5, 1993, and March 21, 1995,\6 to
determine what types of controls, if any, the states' and EPA's
permitting authorities had imposed in these facilities' discharge
permits for five toxic metal pollutants--cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury, and zinc.\7 We found that when the permitting authorities
decided that some type of control was warranted, some consistently
established numeric discharge limits in their permits, and others
imposed monitoring requirements in all or almost all cases. 

For example, North Carolina issued 93 permits during our review
period and, whenever it determined that a pollutant warranted
controls, it always established numeric discharge limits rather than
impose monitoring requirements.  Other states, such as New York and
West Virginia, also consistently established numeric limits for
controlling the five pollutants we examined.  In contrast, New Jersey
issued 44 permits during our review period and, except for 1 permit
that contained a limit for copper, the state always imposed
monitoring requirements instead of discharge limits when the state
determined that controls were warranted.  Oregon, among other states,
made similar decisions, as did EPA's Region VI when it wrote permits
for Louisiana, a state not authorized to issue NPDES permits. 

We also found that some states, such as Vermont and Arkansas, had not
imposed discharge limits or monitoring requirements in the following
instances in which EPA's regional officials said that such controls
may be warranted. 

  In Vermont, none of the discharge permits for major municipal
     facilities contained discharge limits or monitoring requirements
     for the five metals.  However, at our request, the cognizant EPA
     regional staff (in Region I) reviewed 4 of the 15 municipal
     permits issued by Vermont and determined that for 2 of the
     facilities, limits or monitoring requirements would probably be
     appropriate.  Vermont officials agreed to review the permits and
     consider additional requirements. 

  Arkansas, with one exception, had not imposed either limits or
     monitoring requirements in its municipal permits for the toxic
     metals we examined.  State officials are allowing these
     facilities to continue operating under "old" permits rather than
     reissuing them.  The officials told us that if the permits were
     to be formally reopened, the state would be obligated to apply
     EPA-imposed water quality standards for the metals.  Arkansas
     officials believe that these standards are too stringent and
     that the facilities would engage the state in a costly appeal
     process if limits were imposed.  Officials from the cognizant
     EPA regional office (Region VI) said that the Arkansas permits
     should contain discharge limits but that EPA does not have the
     authority to impose such limits in a state authorized to issue
     permits when the state simply declines to reissue them.  EPA's
     only recourse would be to take back responsibility for the
     program--an unrealistic option. 

For facilities, both monitoring requirements and discharge limits can
be costly to implement.  According to officials in EPA's Permits
Division, the costs of monitoring depend on the frequency of required
sampling and on the types of pollutants that must be tested.  The
costs of installing advanced treatment equipment to meet discharge
limits are usually much higher.  These officials also said that
because of these differences in cost, the facilities that are subject
to monitoring requirements generally enjoy an economic advantage over
the facilities that must meet discharge limits, all other things
being equal.  Furthermore, the facilities that are subject to neither
type of control enjoy an economic advantage over the facilities that
must comply with limits or monitoring requirements. 

Overall, our analysis disclosed that for each of the five pollutants,
about 30 percent of the permits contained limits or monitoring
requirements, while about 70 percent contained neither type of
control.  According to EPA's permitting regulations and guidance,
there can be legitimate reasons for imposing no controls over some
pollutants:  Generally, either the facilities are not discharging the
pollutants or their discharges are deemed too low to interfere with
the designated uses of the applicable water bodies.  See appendix II
for a summary of the control decisions across the nation for the five
toxic pollutants included in our analysis and for additional
discussion of the reasons for not imposing limits or monitoring
requirements on some pollutant discharges.  Appendix III presents a
state-by-state breakdown of the 1,407 permits included in our
analysis. 


--------------------
\6 We chose this time frame because as of February 5, 1993, all of
the states had water quality standards for toxic pollutants and were
required to use these standards to derive discharge limits for all
new permits and permits up for renewal. 

\7 We selected these five pollutants for our review because,
according to officials in EPA's Permits Division, they are commonly
discharged by municipal wastewater treatment facilities and are
likely to be found nationwide. 


      DISCHARGE PERMITS MAY
      CONTAIN DIFFERENT LIMITS FOR
      THE SAME POLLUTANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

EPA and the states agree that differences in the numeric limits for
specific pollutants can and do exist--not only from state to state,
but from water body to water body.  To illustrate these differences,
we extracted data on numeric limits as part of our analysis of EPA's
data on municipal permits.  Specifically, from the 1,407 permits for
municipal facilities issued nationwide between February 5, 1993, and
March 21, 1995, we identified those facilities discharging into
freshwater\8 (1) whose permits contained discharge limits for one or
more of the five toxic metals and (2) whose plant capacity, or design
flow,\9 was included in EPA's database. 

For each of the five pollutants, we found significant differences in
the amounts that facilities were allowed to discharge across the
nation--even for facilities of similar capacity.  In the case of
zinc, both the highest and the lowest limits were established in the
same state.  Figure 1 shows the results of our analysis. 

   Figure 1:  Range of Differences
   in Discharge Limits for Five
   Toxic Metal Pollutants at
   Facilities Discharging Into
   Freshwater

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Notes:  For each of the five pollutants, we selected a range for the
facilities' capacity that (1) was sufficiently narrow for the
facilities contained within it to be considered similar in size
(e.g., a range of 1.4 to 2.5 million gallons per day) and (2)
included as many permits as possible for our analysis.  For the sake
of consistency, we used the "daily maximum" discharge limits (i.e.,
the maximum amount of pollutants that could be discharged in any one
day) for our analysis; some permits also contained other types of
limits, such as limits on the weekly or 30-day average discharge. 
After applying our selection criteria, we were left with from 19 to
34 permits issued nationwide for each of the five pollutants. 

The discharge limits were expressed as maximum concentrations--either
as milligrams per liter or micrograms per liter.  For the sake of
consistency, we converted all limits to pounds per day. 

As figure 1 indicates, differences in the numeric limits for the same
pollutant can be significant--in the case of mercury, about 775 times
greater at one facility than at another facility of similar capacity. 
We discuss the causes of the differences in discharge limits later in
this report. 


--------------------
\8 We excluded permits for facilities that discharge into marine
waters because the limits derived for these facilities can be
significantly higher than the limits established for facilities that
discharge into freshwater.  Including such facilities would,
therefore, have distorted our analysis. 

\9 A facility's capacity is stated in terms of average design flow,
or the amount of wastewater that the facility is designed to
discharge, in millions of gallons per day. 


      VARIATIONS IN STATES' NPDES
      PROGRAMS HAVE RAISED
      CONCERNS IN NEIGHBORING
      JURISDICTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Variations in the discharge limits, or in the standards and
procedures used to derive these limits, have been a source of
concern, particularly when neighboring jurisdictions share water
bodies and the differences are readily apparent to the permitting
authorities and discharging facilities, as the following examples
illustrate: 

  In 1995, an industrial facility in Pennsylvania challenged a
     discharge limit for arsenic because Pennsylvania's numeric
     criterion was 2,500 times more stringent than that used by the
     neighboring state of New York, into which the discharge
     flowed.\10 Among other things, the discharger argued that having
     to comply with the more stringent criterion created an economic
     disadvantage for the company.  Eventually, Pennsylvania agreed
     to reissue the permit with a monitoring requirement for arsenic
     instead of a discharge limit.  The state has also revised its
     water quality standards using the less stringent criterion. 

  Oklahoma challenged the 1985 permit that EPA issued to an Arkansas
     municipal wastewater treatment facility that discharges into a
     tributary of the Illinois River.  One of the key issues in the
     case was Oklahoma's contention that the facility's permit, which
     was based on Arkansas's water quality standards, contained
     limits that would violate Oklahoma's water quality standards
     when the facility's discharge moved downstream.  As a result,
     Oklahoma officials maintained, the river would not achieve its
     designation as "outstanding natural resource water," a special
     classification designed to protect high-quality waters. 
     Although EPA has the authority to ensure that discharges in the
     states located upstream do not violate the water quality
     standards in the states located downstream, the agency
     determined that this case did not warrant such action, in part
     because the discharge allowed under the permit would not produce
     a detectable violation of Oklahoma's standards.  In 1992, the
     Supreme Court ruled that EPA's issuance of the Arkansas permit
     was reasonable.\11

Concerns among states about differences in water quality standards
and the policies that affect their implementation may become more
common in the future.  According to a recent analysis by the U.S. 
Geological Survey,\12 many states receive more than half of their
water pollution from neighboring states.  While much of this
pollution may be attributed to diffuse--or "nonpoint"--sources, such
as agricultural runoff, according to an official from the U.S. 
Geological Survey, the discharges from municipal and industrial
facilities allowed under permits also contribute to interstate
pollution. 


--------------------
\10 Pennsylvania had updated its water quality standards on the basis
of current information on health effects published by EPA; the state
adopted a standard of 0.02 micrograms per liter for arsenic.  New
York continued to rely on EPA's earlier guidance on arsenic and
maintained its standard at 50 micrograms per liter. 

\11 Arkansas v.  Oklahoma, 503 U.S.  91 (1992). 

\12 The U.S.  Geological Survey issued an abstract of its findings in
the spring of 1995 and plans to publish a full report by the spring
of 1996. 


   SEVERAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO
   DIFFERENCES IN CONTROLLING
   POLLUTANT DISCHARGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Both the act and EPA's regulations give the states and EPA
considerable flexibility in implementing the NPDES program.  The
permitting authorities differ considerably in how they assess the
likelihood that states' water quality standards will be exceeded, as
well as in how they decide what controls are warranted.  If they
decide that discharge limits are warranted, these limits can differ
widely because of differences in the (1) states' water quality
standards and (2) implementation policies that come into play when
the permitting authorities "translate" general water quality
standards into limits for specific facilities in specific locations. 


      PERMITTING AUTHORITIES
      DIFFER IN HOW THEY DECIDE ON
      THE NEED FOR CONTROLS OVER
      POLLUTANT DISCHARGES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

We found differences in how the permitting authorities determine that
a pollutant has the "reasonable potential" to violate a state's water
quality standard and prevent the designated use of a water body from
being achieved.  In EPA's Region I, for example, the permitting
officials believe that one or two samples indicating the potential
for a violation may suffice to justify imposing a discharge limit. 
In contrast, given the same evidence, officials in EPA's Region VI
generally impose requirements for monitoring in order to collect data
over a longer period of time--up to the 5-year life of the permit. 

Officials in the Permits Division at EPA headquarters agreed that
there are differences in how the states' and EPA's permitting
authorities decide whether and how to impose controls over pollutant
discharges.  The officials said that a key element in these
differences is the amount and type of data the authorities require to
determine reasonable potential; some permitting authorities are
comfortable with establishing discharge limits on the basis of
limited information, while others want to collect more data and
impose monitoring requirements.  To assist the states and EPA's
regional offices, EPA has issued national guidance,\13

including a suggested methodology and other options for determining
reasonable potential.  However, Permits Division officials emphasized
that the law and applicable regulations provide for flexibility in
decisions on reasonable potential and other aspects of the NPDES
program. 


--------------------
\13 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control, EPA, Office of Water (Mar.  1991). 


      SETTING DISCHARGE LIMITS
      OFFERS MANY OPPORTUNITIES
      FOR PERMITTING AUTHORITIES
      TO EXERCISE FLEXIBILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The states have exercised the flexibility available within the Clean
Water Act and EPA's regulations to (1) adopt different water quality
standards and (2) apply different policies in implementing these
standards in permits.  As a result of these differences, discharge
limits can vary significantly even, as illustrated earlier, for
facilities of similar capacity. 


         DIFFERENCES IN WATER
         QUALITY STANDARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1

In the case of states' water quality standards, the designated use
assigned to a particular water body can affect how stringent a
facility's discharge limit will be.  For example, if a facility is
discharging into a water body designated for recreational use, the
discharge limits are likely to be less stringent than they would be
if the water body were designated for use as a drinking water supply. 

Water quality standards also differ in terms of the numeric criteria
the states adopt to ensure that the designated uses of the water will
be achieved or maintained.  EPA has provided guidance to the states
on developing these criteria.\14 Some states have adopted EPA's
numeric criteria (e.g., a human health criterion for mercury that
allows for no more than 0.144 micrograms per liter) as their own, and
others have developed different criteria that reflect regional
conditions and concerns.  For example, Texas modified EPA's criteria
to account for higher rates of fish consumption in the state. 

Another significant source of differences in the states' water
quality standards is the cancer risk level that is selected for
carcinogenic pollutants.\15 For example, Connecticut typically bases
its numeric criteria for these pollutants on a risk level of 1 excess
cancer case per 1 million people, while Arkansas bases its criteria
on a risk level of 1 excess cancer case per 100,000 people.  Thus,
Connecticut's criteria are 10 times more stringent than Arkansas's. 


--------------------
\14 Most recently, EPA has issued new guidance on establishing
numeric criteria for metals.  The states will be allowed to use
either of two methodologies.  As a result, some states will have more
stringent criteria for toxic metals than others. 

\15 The risk level, in this context, is the probability of additional
cancer cases in a population as a result of exposure to toxic
pollutants.  All other things being equal, a water quality standard
based on a risk level of one additional cancer case per 100,000
people is less stringent than a standard based on a risk level of one
additional cancer case per 1 million people.  EPA issues criteria for
protecting human health using risk levels ranging from one additional
cancer case per 100,000 people to one additional case per 10 million
people, and the states have the discretion to base their own
standards on any risk level within this range.  The states may use
other risk levels if such levels are scientifically defensible. 


         DIFFERENCES IN
         IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.2

Many states have established implementation policies that can
significantly affect the application of water quality standards in
establishing the discharge limits for individual facilities.  These
policies address technical factors such as mixing zones, dilution,
and background concentration. 

The states differ in their policies for mixing zones--limited areas
where the facilities' discharges mix with the receiving waters and
numeric criteria can be exceeded.  The states' policies can influence
the stringency of the discharge limits by restricting where such
zones are allowed and/or by defining their size and shape.  In Texas,
for instance, the size of mixing zones in streams is typically
limited to an area 100 feet upstream and 300 feet downstream from the
discharge point; other states apply different standards or do not
allow mixing zones in some types of water bodies.  In general, the
discharge limits will be less stringent for a facility located in a
state that allows mixing zones than for a facility in a state that
requires facilities to meet numeric criteria at the end of the
discharge pipe. 

The states' policies on dilution--the ratio of the low flow of the
receiving waters to the flow of the discharge--can also influence the
stringency of the discharge limits.  In general, the larger the
volume of the receiving waters available to dilute, or reduce the
concentration of, the pollutants being discharged, the less stringent
the discharge limit.  Thus, all other things being equal, the
discharge limit for a facility located on the Mississippi River will
be less stringent than the limit for a similar facility located on a
smaller river.  The states also use different assumptions in
computing the flow of a facility's discharge (e.g., the highest
monthly average during the preceding 2 years or the highest 30-day
average expected during the life of the permit) and the low flow of
the receiving waters (e.g., the lowest average flow during 7
consecutive days within the past 10 years or the lowest 1-day flow
that occurs within 3 years). 

The states also have different policies on background
concentration--the level of pollutants already present in the
receiving waters as a result of naturally occurring pollutants,
permitted discharges from upstream, spills, unregulated discharges,
or some combination of these sources.  In general, the higher the
level of the background concentration, the more stringent the
discharge limit will be because the extent of the existing pollution
affects the amounts that facilities may discharge without violating
the water quality standards.  Connecticut, for example, assumes
background concentrations of zero in deriving limits, while Colorado
uses actual data.  All other things being equal, the discharge limits
established by Connecticut will be less stringent than those set by
Colorado whenever the actual background concentration is greater than
zero. 


   EPA'S OVERSIGHT OF PERMITTING
   POLICIES IS LIMITED, BUT NEW
   INITIATIVES MAY PROMOTE GREATER
   CONSISTENCY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

EPA, through its regional offices, periodically reviews the states'
water quality standards; if it determines that the standards are
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act--because,
for example, the standards do not adequately protect the designated
uses of the water or are not scientifically defensible--it
disapproves them.  However, EPA does not consistently review policies
that could significantly affect the implementation of the standards
in permits, either when a state submits its standards for approval or
when an EPA regional office reviews individual permits before they
are issued. 

As a result of an apparent inconsistency in EPA's regulations, some
states are not including the relevant implementation policies when
they submit their water quality standards to EPA for review and
approval.\16 According to the regulations, the states must submit to
EPA for review information on the designated uses of their waters and
the numeric or narrative criteria for specific pollutants as well as
"information on general policies" that may affect the application or
implementation of the standards.  However, EPA's regulations also
provide that the states may exercise discretion over what general
policies they include in their standards.  In EPA's regions I and VI,
for example, program officials believe that (1) the states are under
no obligation to submit their implementation policies, such as their
policies on considering background concentration, for EPA's review
and (2) EPA cannot require the states to do so.  Officials at EPA's
headquarters and regional offices acknowledge that there is some
confusion about what information the states must submit for review. 

EPA officials maintain that even if the agency has not reviewed the
states' implementation policies in the course of approving the
standards, it can control the use of these policies when EPA's
regional offices review individual permits and have the opportunity
to disapprove those permits that do not adequately protect water
quality.  However, on average EPA's regional offices review only
about 10 percent of the permits issued to major facilities by the 40
states authorized to issue permits.  Moreover, EPA is considering a
new initiative that will eliminate reviews of permits before issuance
and will instead provide for postissuance reviews of a sample of
permits.  According to the Acting Director of EPA's Permits Division,
such reviews are a better use of EPA's resources because they require
less staff time and EPA's reviewers will not be pressured to meet
deadlines for public comment.  However, he said that, as a general
rule, EPA will not reopen permits.  Thus, identified problems may not
be addressed until the permits come up for renewal, usually every 5
years.  If EPA becomes aware of a significant problem, the regional
office will work with the applicable state to attempt to remedy the
situation. 

Because EPA relies on its regional offices to oversee the states'
implementation policies, it does not maintain national information on
these policies.  Moreover, except for some efforts by its regional
offices, EPA has not assessed the impact of the differences among the
states.  EPA headquarters officials told us that although such an
assessment might be useful, they have no plans to conduct one, in
part because they do not have the resources or a specific legislative
requirement to do so.  In some instances, EPA's regional offices have
tried to identify and resolve differences in the states'
implementation policies because they have been concerned about the
extent of these differences.\17 However, some states have resisted
these initiatives on the basis that they should not be required to
comply with policies that are not required nationwide. 

EPA is considering regulatory changes that could enhance the agency's
ability to monitor the states' implementation policies.  According to
a March 1995 draft of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA
plans to solicit comments on, among other things, the kind of
information on implementation policies that the states should be
required to submit for EPA's approval.  In the case of mixing zones,
for example, EPA is seeking comments on whether the states should be
required to describe their methods for determining the location,
size, shape, and other characteristics of the mixing zones that they
will allow.  The Chief of EPA's Water Quality Standards Branch told
us that although other priorities could postpone the rulemaking, EPA
has not revised the applicable regulations since 1983, and some
changes are therefore needed. 

While potential regulatory changes are as yet undefined, the Office
of Water has embarked on a strategy for watershed management that
could, by itself, achieve greater consistency among the states' NPDES
programs, including the standards and policies the states use to
derive the discharge limits for the facilities within the same
watershed.  Watershed management means identifying all sources of
pollution and integrating controls on pollution within hydrologically
defined drainage basins, known as watersheds.  Under this approach,
all of the stakeholders in a watershed's area--including federal,
state, and local regulatory authorities; municipal and industrial
dischargers; other potential sources of pollution; and interested
citizens--agree on how best to restore and maintain water quality
within the watershed. 

In March 1994, the Permits Division of EPA's Office of Water
published its NPDES Watershed Strategy to describe the division's
plans for incorporating the NPDES program's functions into the
broader watershed management approach.  Although the strategy does
not specifically discuss interstate watersheds, EPA officials believe
that the states will identify such areas and, where reasonable,
coordinate the issuance of NPDES permits.  EPA officials believe that
as a practical matter, the watershed management approach will cause
the states to resolve differences in their standards and
implementation policies as they attempt to issue NPDES permits
consistently in shared water bodies and watersheds. 


--------------------
\16 According to the Chief of EPA's Water Quality Standards Branch,
if EPA has an opportunity to review a state's implementation policies
and determines that a policy would prevent the state's water quality
standards from being achieved, the agency will disapprove the state's
standards. 

\17 For example, in 1994 EPA's Region VIII drafted a regional policy
on mixing zones because it was concerned about inconsistencies in the
approaches used by the states in the region and perceived
inadequacies in the national guidance. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review
and comment, and on December 15, 1995, EPA provided us with comments
from its Acting Director, Permits Division, Office of Water.  In
addition to some technical and editorial suggestions, which we
incorporated as appropriate, EPA had the following two comments. 

According to EPA, the results-in-brief section of the draft drew too
stark a picture of the limitations of EPA's reviews of the states'
programs.  EPA said that its regional offices do review the states'
standards and implementation policies and that they do consider the
impact of variations among the states in their reviews. 
Nevertheless, EPA said that its reviews of the states' implementation
policies could be more exhaustive and that more could be done to help
ensure appropriate levels of consistency among the states, assuming
adequate resources.  We revised that section of the report to better
recognize the extent of EPA's reviews of the states' standards and
implementation policies, and to better pinpoint the limitations of
these reviews. 

EPA also said that the results-in-brief section of the draft could
leave the impression that the only reason for differences among the
states is that the Clean Water Act provides for flexibility, when
inherent differences in surface waters across the country could
themselves result in different standards and water-quality-based
permitting requirements among the states.  We revised that section of
the report to recognize this reason for differences. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We performed most of our work at the Permits Division and the Water
Quality Standards Branch, Office of Wastewater Management, EPA
headquarters; EPA Region I in Boston, Massachusetts, Region VI in
Dallas, Texas, and Region VIII in Denver, Colorado; and state NPDES
program offices in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Texas, and Utah.  We conducted our review from July 1994 through
December 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.  For a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology, see appendix IV. 

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days
after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
the Administrator, EPA; the Director, Office of Management and
Budget; and other interested parties.  We will also make copies
available to others on request. 

Please call me on (202) 512-6112 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
V. 

Sincerely yours,

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues


EPA'S AND THE STATES'
RESPONSIBILITIES
=========================================================== Appendix I

Figure I.1 illustrates the roles and responsibilities of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state agencies in
developing water quality standards and implementing them in the
permits issued to municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program (NPDES). 

   Figure I.1:  Roles and
   Responsibilities of EPA and
   States in Developing NPDES
   Discharge Limits

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

EPA issues guidance on water quality criteria\1 for specific
pollutants that the states may use in developing numeric criteria for
their water quality standards.  States may also use other data to
develop their numeric criteria as long as these criteria are
scientifically defensible.  The states' water quality standards--and
any policies that affect the implementation of these standards--are
subject to EPA's approval. 

In determining whether water-quality-based controls are warranted,
the states' and EPA's permitting authorities (1) analyze a facility's
wastewater to identify the type and amount of pollutants being
discharged and (2) determine whether these levels of pollutants will
cause, have a "reasonable potential" to cause, or will contribute to
causing the facility's discharge to exceed the state's water quality
criteria.  This assessment has one of three possible effects on a
facility's permit:  It may result in (1) a discharge limit, if the
amount of pollutants being discharged violates, is likely to violate,
or will contribute to violating the criteria that protect the
receiving waters; (2) a requirement for monitoring to gather
additional data in order to determine whether a limit is warranted;
or (3) neither a limit nor a monitoring requirement, if the amount of
pollutants being discharged will not violate, is unlikely to violate,
or will not contribute to violating the criteria that protect the
receiving waters. 


--------------------
\1 EPA's water quality criteria consist of technical information on
the effects of pollutants or chemicals on water quality, including
the water's physical, chemical, biological, and aesthetic
characteristics.  Such criteria address the effects of pollutants not
only on surface waters but also on sediment, the wildlife that feeds
on aquatic life within the waters, and other aspects of the water
ecosystem.  As we reported in 1994, EPA has issued criteria to
protect human health for 91 of the 126 priority pollutants and
criteria to protect aquatic life for 30 of these pollutants.  For
additional information on the status of EPA's efforts to develop
water quality criteria, see our report Water Pollution:  EPA Needs to
Set Priorities for Water Quality Criteria Issues (GAO/RCED-94-117,
June 17, 1994). 


ADDITIONAL DATA ON POLLUTANT
CONTROL DECISIONS
========================================================== Appendix II

For each of the five toxic metal pollutants included in our analysis,
figure II.1 shows the number of permits that contained discharge
limits, the number that contained monitoring requirements, and the
number that contained neither type of control. 

   Figure II.1:  Summary of
   Control Decisions Nationwide
   for Five Toxic Metal Pollutants

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Our analysis included 1,407 municipal permits and determined,
for each of five toxic metal pollutants, whether these permits
include (1) discharge limits, (2) a requirement to monitor more than
once per year, or (3) no controls.  On the basis of discussions with
EPA's headquarters and regional officials, we excluded permits that
contained only annual monitoring requirements because such monitoring
is conducted for the purpose of general toxicity testing or to
examine the effectiveness of industrial pretreatment programs.  We
also excluded miscellaneous types of municipal permits, such as
municipal stormwater permits. 

Municipal wastewater treatment facilities receive wastewater from
several sources, including industry, commercial businesses, and
households.  This wastewater is likely to include toxic pollutants,
primarily from industrial sources whose waste must be pretreated to
reduce or eliminate such pollutants before it enters the municipal
treatment facilities.  According to officials in EPA's Permits
Division, a major reason for the lack of discharge limits and
monitoring requirements is the existence of effective pretreatment
programs.\1 These officials believe that because such programs play
an important role in reducing the level of toxic pollutants entering
municipal treatment facilities, the lack of controls disclosed in our
analysis is not surprising.  They consider our findings to be an
indication that the pretreatment programs are working as intended. 

However, other factors suggest that additional controls may be
warranted.  First, officials from EPA's Permits Division acknowledge
that in some cases, the permitting authorities have been slow to
impose controls in municipal permits on the discharges of toxic
metals or to adopt numeric criteria for such metals in their water
quality standards.\2 In addition, the pretreatment programs primarily
focus on industrial customers\3 and, as we reported in 1991,
nonindustrial wastes from both commercial and residential sources can
be a significant source of toxic pollutants entering municipal
wastewater treatment facilities.\4 According to the most
comprehensive study cited in the report (a 1979 EPA survey of
municipal treatment facilities in four major cities), nonindustrial
sources contribute nearly 70 percent of the copper and over 30
percent of the lead, mercury, and zinc entering the municipal
facilities.  Our report also cited other, more recent studies that
identified significant contributions of toxic metals from
nonindustrial sources. 


--------------------
\1 According to the Clean Water Act, the primary objectives of
pretreatment programs are to (1) prevent the introduction into
municipal wastewater treatment facilities of pollutants that will
either interfere with treatment operations or pass through into the
receiving waters and (2) improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim
municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludge.  EPA's regulations
require pretreatment programs at all municipal facilities with a
design flow of more than 5 million gallons per day and at any smaller
facilities that are receiving wastes that could interfere with plant
operations or pass through into the receiving waters. 

\2 The states are required to adopt numeric criteria only for those
priority pollutants (1) for which EPA has issued guidance and (2)
which the state has determined are discharged within its jurisdiction
at levels that may hinder the designated uses of the water from being
achieved.  Some states have adopted numeric criteria for all of the
pollutants for which EPA has issued guidance on criteria, while other
states have been more selective. 

\3 Pretreatment programs are also designed to address other sources
of toxic wastes, including commercial sources, such as dry cleaners
and radiator shops.  Such programs may include restrictions, called
local limits. 

\4 Water Pollution:  Nonindustrial Wastewater Pollution Can Be Better
Managed (GAO/RCED-92-40, Dec.  5, 1991). 


SUMMARY OF DECISIONS ON
WATER-QUALITY-BASED CONTROLS FOR
FIVE METALS
========================================================= Appendix III

The following table, based on data extracted from EPA's Permits
Compliance System database, shows the types of controls, if any,
imposed by the states' and EPA's permitting authorities for the five
toxic metals in all of the permits issued to major municipal
wastewater treatment facilities from February 5, 1993 through March
21, 1995.  For each of the five pollutants, the table lists (1)
"Limits"--the number of permits that contained discharge limits for
the selected pollutants, (2) "Monitor"--the number of permits that
required facilities to monitor the level of pollutants in their
discharge, and (3) "None"--the number of permits that contained no
controls. 


                                            Monito                  Monito                 Monito                 Monito                  Monito
State               Permits issued  Limits       r    None  Limits       r   None  Limits       r   None  Limits       r    None  Limits       r   None
------------------  --------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  -----  ------  ------  -----  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  -----
Region I
Connecticut                     18       1      17       0       9       9      0       2      16      0       0       5      13       8      10      0
Maine                           20       0       0      20       4       0     16       1       0     19       0       0      20       0       1     19
Massachusetts                   21       1       1      19      10       3      8       0       3     18       0       0      21       2       0     19
New Hampshire                   14       1       3      10       3       4      7       2       4      8       0       0      14       1       3     10
Rhode Island                     3       0       1       2       0       1      2       0       1      2       0       0       3       0       1      2
Vermont                         15       0       0      15       0       0     15       0       0     15       0       0      15       0       0     15
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region I              91       3      22      66      26      17     48       5      24     62       0       5      86      11      15     65
Region II
New Jersey                      44       0      42       2       1      40      3       0      41      3       0      41       3       0      42      2
New York                        79       8       0      71      17       0     62      11       0     68       7       0      72      10       0     69
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region               123       8      42      73      18      40     65      11      41     71       7      41      75      10      42     71
 II
Region III
Delaware                         4       0       0       4       0       0      4       0       0      4       0       0       4       0       0      4
Maryland                        14       0       0      14       0       3     11       0       2     12       0       3      11       0       2     12
Pennsylvania                    79       2      10      67       6      34     39       1      26     52       1      13      65       5      22     52
Virginia                        31       0       2      29       1       3     27       1       0     30       0       3      28       0       1     30
West Virginia                   14      10       0       4      10       0      4      10       0      4      10       0       4       9       0      5
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region               142      12      12     118      17      40     85      12      28    102      11      19     112      14      25    103
 III
Region IV
Alabama                         59       0       0      59       0       0     59       0       0     59       0       0      59       0       0     59
Florida                         84       0       0      84       5       6     73       2       3     79       3       6      75       1       2     81
Georgia                         39       0       0      39       0       7     32       0       3     36       0       4      35       2       8     29
Kentucky                        28       0       2      26       0       2     26       0       2     26       0       0      28       0       2     26
Mississippi                     19       0       0      19       1       1     17       0       1     18       0       0      19       1       1     17
North Carolina                  93      41       0      52       0       0     93      43       0     50      25       0      68       0       0     93
South Carolina                  14       9       3       2       7       4      3       9       3      2       0       0      14       5       6      3
Tennessee                       50      15       0      35      19       1     30      14       1     35      10       1      39      14       1     35
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region               386      65       5     316      32      21    333      68      13    305      38      11     337      23      20    343
 IV

Region V
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois                        57       4      41      12      10      34     13       2      38     17       2      41      14       0      34     23
Indiana                         11       3       0       8       3       1      7       3       0      8       1       1       9       3       1      7
Michigan                        35       6       7      22       6      12     17       2       5     28       3       1      31       6       7     22
Minnesota                       15       1       1      13       1       4     10       0       3     12       1       1      13       0       4     11
Ohio                            82      49      29       4      67      11      4      32      47      3      52      25       5      59      19      4
Wisconsin                       36       2       0      34       4       0     32       0       0     36       2       0      34       3       0     33
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region V             236      65      78      93      91      62     83      39      93    104      61      69     106      71      65    100

Region VI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas                         9       0       0       9       0       1      8       0       0      9       0       0       9       0       0      9
Louisiana                       41       0       2      39       0       6     35       0       2     39       0       7      34       0       5     36
New Mexico                       5       0       0       5       0       0      5       0       1      4       0       1       4       0       0      5
Oklahoma                         7       0       2       5       0       1      6       0       3      4       0       4       3       0       0      7
Texas                           91       0       1      90       0       1     90       2       0     89       1       3      87       0       1     90
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region               153       0       5     148       0       9    144       2       6    145       1      15     137       0       6    147
 VI

Region VII
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa                            25       2       0      23       6       0     19       3       0     22       3       0      22       0       0     25
Kansas                           2       0       0       2       0       0      2       0       0      2       0       0       2       0       0      2
Missouri                        26       4       0      22       5       0     21       4       0     22       2       0      24       5       0     21
Nebraska                        22       3      10       9       3      10      9       3      10      9       0       0      22       3      10      9
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region                75       9      10      56      14      10     51      10      10     55       5       0      70       8      10     57
 VII

Region VIII
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                        21       1       0      20       1       0     20       1       0     20       3       8      10       0       0     21
Montana                          6       0       0       6       0       0      6       0       0      6       0       0       6       0       0      6
North Dakota                    13       0       0      13       0       0     13       0       0     13       0       0      13       0       0     13
South Dakota                    11       0       0      11       0       0     11       0       0     11       0       0      11       0       0     11
Utah                            13       0       0      13       0       0     13       0       0     13       0       0      13       0       0     13
Wyoming                          9       0       0       9       0       0      9       0       0      9       0       0       9       0       0      9
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region                73       1       0      72       1       0     72       1       0     72       3       8      62       0       0     73
 VIII

Region IX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                          4       3       0       1       3       1      0       3       0      1       3       0       1       3       0      1
California                      72      35       5      32      36       5     31      35       4     33      35       5      32      35       5     32
Hawaii                           2       0       0       2       0       0      2       0       0      2       0       0       2       0       0      2
Nevada                           7       0       0       7       0       0      7       0       0      7       0       0       7       0       0      7
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region                85      38       5      42      39       6     40      38       4     43      38       5      42      38       5     42
 IX

Region X
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska                           3       0       1       2       1       1      1       0       1      2       0       1       2       0       1      2
Idaho                            4       0       0       4       0       0      4       0       0      4       1       0       3       0       0      4
Oregon                          18       0      11       7       0      11      7       0      10      8       0      11       7       0      10      8
Washington                      18       1       1      16       7       2      9       2       1     15       3       1      14       2       2     14
=======================================================================================================================================================
Total for Region X              43       1      13      29       8      14     21       2      12     29       4      13      26       2      13     28
=======================================================================================================================================================
Grand total                  1,407     202     192   1,013     246     219    942     188     231    988     168     186   1,053     177     201  1,029
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Based on information from EPA's Permits Compliance System. 


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

To obtain nationwide information on variations in whether and how
pollutants are controlled in discharge permits, we extracted
information from EPA's Permits Compliance System database on the
1,407 permits issued to major municipal wastewater treatment
facilities from February 5, 1993, through March 21, 1995.  We
analyzed these data to determine the type of controls, if any, on
five toxic metal pollutants typically discharged by municipal
facilities (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc).  For the
permits that contained discharge limits for the five selected
pollutants, we obtained those limits to determine the range for each
pollutant at facilities of similar capacity.  For the permits that
contained the highest and lowest limits, we verified the information
in EPA's database with the applicable EPA regional office.  As agreed
with the requester's office, we did not attempt to determine the
appropriateness of the differences in discharge limits because such
an assessment would have been too complex and time-consuming. 

We confined our analysis of variations in the discharge limits to
municipal facilities because EPA's Permits Compliance System\1

database does not contain information that distinguishes between
technology-based and water-quality-based discharge limits for
industrial facilities.  However, because EPA has not issued any
technology-based standards for toxic pollutants that are applicable
to municipal facilities, the discharge limits for such pollutants
were derived from water-quality-based standards.  According to EPA,
water-quality-based controls are considered for virtually all major
facilities, and an estimated 30 percent of the permits for these
facilities nationwide actually contain limits based on water quality. 

To obtain information on the causes of the variations in the states'
NPDES permits, we interviewed the EPA officials responsible for the
NPDES and Water Quality Standards programs at the agency's
headquarters in Washington, D.C., and regional offices in Boston,
Massachusetts (Region I); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Region III);
Chicago, Illinois (Region V); Dallas, Texas (Region VI); and Denver,
Colorado (Region VIII).  We reviewed the applicable provisions of the
Clean Water Act, EPA's regulations, and guidance on NPDES permits and
water quality standards.  We also interviewed state officials in
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Utah and reviewed documents on these states' water quality
standards, implementation policies, and NPDES permitting activities. 

To obtain information on EPA's role in monitoring the policies and
procedures that the states use in deriving discharge limits, we
reviewed applicable regulations and guidance, including EPA's
preliminary draft of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
potential revisions to the agency's regulation on water quality
standards and EPA's NPDES Watershed Strategy.  We also discussed
EPA's oversight authority with officials from EPA's Permits Division,
Water Quality Standards Branch, Office of General Counsel, and
selected regional offices.  In addition, we discussed oversight
issues with selected states, environmental groups, and municipal and
industrial associations. 

We also obtained limited information from EPA's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds and Office of General Counsel; additional
states and EPA's regional offices; the U.S.  Geological Survey; the
U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service; environmental groups, including the
National Wildlife Federation and the Environmental Defense Fund; and
various associations representing state regulators and municipal and
industrial dischargers. 


--------------------
\1 The Permits Compliance System is a management information system
that contains data on NPDES permits.  The system is used to track
permit conditions, the facilities' compliance, and enforcement. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Charles M.  Adams, Assistant Director

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Karen Keegan, Senior Attorney

BOSTON FIELD OFFICE

Ellen Crocker, Core Group Manager
Maureen Driscoll, Evaluator-in-Charge
Les Mahagan, Senior Evaluator
Linda Choy, Senior Program Analyst


*** End of document. ***