i ,f , , 􀁾􀀠. Barry R. 􀁾􀀱􀁣􀁂􀁥􀁥􀀮􀀠Chairman R B. 'Ralph' :-'I.lrquez. Commissiol1er Protecting Texas by Reducing and Prevenling Pollution January 5, 1999 Subject: Preparing Public Water Suppliers in Texas for Year 2000 Dear Public Water Supplier: This letter is to inform you that your water syst<:m could be affected by operational problems due to date sensitive computer chips. The Year 2000 (Y2K) problem is very real and easy to overlook. Impacts could range from minor annoyance to total systems failure. By acting now you can avoid failures that could impact the quality ofwater you provide to your customers or impact the delivery ofwater to your customers. An information sheet and reference guide has been enclosed for your use. The time to prepare for possible Y2K problems is now. All major software vendors have Y2K information on their Web sites. Visit the vendor site and see what the Y2K issues are and what remedies they offer. Ifthe managers ofyour water system would rather employ an outside source, there are consulting firms that perform Y2K troubleshooting measures. The important thing to remember is that time is an issue. Data must be converted, employees must be trained and the systems tested for reliability. Maintaining a safe, dependable water supply and averting any potential Y2K problems is a goal we share with everyone across the state ofTexas. Ifyou have any questions please call Mike Howell at (512)239-6020. Sincerely, 􀁃􀁊􀁬􀁣􀁵􀁟􀁴􀁴􀀬􀁾􀀠[f2-􀁾􀁑􀁩􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀠Charles R. Maddox, P.E., Manager I Public Drinking Water Section Water Utilities Division cc: TNRCC Regions 1-16 Drinking Water Advisory Workgroup Don Johnson -TNRCC Y2K Systems Coordinator P.O, Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 5121239-1000 • Internet address: W'Nw.tnrcc.state.tx.us The Y2KBug The Problem: . The Y2K problem is both a hardware and a software problem. Some computer hardware and software, and some electronic components contain programmable Ipgiccontrollers (Ptes) that may have trouble when going from the year 1999 to the year 2000 because they. were designed to use only two digits to represent the year. There is a great deal of variation in chip design, and the way computer chips deal with going from year "99" to year "00" depends on the 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁲􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁾!lnd the specific application. . Corrective Steps To Take: '. Inventory all components with a programable logic controller, particularly those that ask for a date after a power failure, or have a battery back-up power source. A detailed inventory checklist can be obtained from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. (See attachment for web site) Assess the items found during the inventory and then prioritize based on severity. Involve board members and public officials so they know what the utility is doing and and what the cost will be for implementing a program. • Test components (see AMWA link). Document systems checked and your findings. Correct any problems encountered and document all repair/replacement decisions. • Develop a contingency plan and test the plan. Have paper backllPs of mission critical infonnation. Inform customers that steps are being taken to ensure they will continue to receive an adequate supply ofsafe, clean water. Places You Should Look In Your Operations: BiDing Systems: Assess your customer billing and usage tracking system and problem so.lve as necessary. • Make sure customer databaselbilling system uses a four-digit year, not two. • Check versions of your operating software, databases, and software that communicates between databases, servers and clients. Contact your software vendors for Y2K compliance information. • Contact PC, motherboard, BIOS manufacturer/supplier to assure items used for billing are Y2K compatible. Computer Controlled Production and Process Control: • Check version of operating software, databases, and software that communicates between databases, servers and clients. examples: level controllers data loggers that use the date such as systems that record flow rate, turbidity, chemical feed rates, etc. automated controllers that turn pumps on or off, especially those that operate the pumps periodically each day • package plants • .flow controllers • chemical pacing controllers • level sensors • chemical monitors with feedback loops remote monitoring and control 􀁳􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁭􀁳􀀠such as those at re-chlorination stations • SCADA hardware and software . computers used to control processes Places You Should Look Outside Your Water Supply Operations: • VerilY that your electric supplier is on track to reduce risks. Discuss with them where water suppliers fit into their Y2K preparations and contingency plans, and emphasize the importance of public water supply within their returnof-power hierarchy. • Treatment chemical supply and delivery. • Telecommunication service between your central office and remote locations. February 1999 . Monthly Planner Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday friday Saturday 2 .3 51 4 6 10:00 AM DRAFTAgenda Items Due11:30 AM Employee 8:00 AM Mayor'sAGOOlAACTION! Cmte. BreakfastlConf.ABA Luncheon Ctre. : ! ! 11 12 137 8 9 10 IG:OO AM POsr 􀁃􀁏􀁕􀁎􀁾7:30 AM Metroplex Mayod B/tfst; 12:00 PM Toast-cn.MttrlNOmasters/Conf. 􀀱􀀰􀀻􀁏􀁏􀁁􀁍􀁾􀁪􀁬Centre 􀁍􀁣􀁾􀁡􀀺􀀠: 7:00PM Town laG,a (OUN([ MIi1lHG :Meeting/Conr. Centre MONTIiL Y REPOR· TSDUE 16 17 2015 18 1914 Agenda Items Due 8:30 AM Safely 7:30 PM BI""k Roview Bd. MIs. HlstorylWhite10:00 AM DRAFT RockChapeiAOENDA. 4:30 PM Toll : Tunnel Opening : 6:30 PM Aitport Bd. MIg. 2725 2621 22 23 24 􀁉􀀨􀀩􀀻􀀨􀁉􀁑􀁁􀁍􀁾􀁣􀁩􀁬􀀠10:00 AM POST 􀁃􀁏􀁕􀁎􀁾􀀠7:30PMP&'Z12:00 PM Toast-cn.MttrlNO Commi_MIs.masters/Conf. 1.lD P. (OlJljtlt _NGCentre "'. : 28 March S MTWT F S Janu"'Y S MTWT F S • • 1 I , I , 3 • , •3 5 • , 10 10 " 12 I) I. 1 • , II " fl 14 " 16 17 18 " 20,. IS 11 18 21 22 !l" " 21 22 13 24 15 26 2124 2S 26 " '" 29 JI " " " 30" ! Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 211/99 Barry R. McBee, Chairman R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner John M. Baker, Commissiomr Jeffrey A. 􀁓􀁡􀁩􀁴􀁡􀁾􀀠Executive Director TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution February 1, 1999 Re: Transition to the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pretreatment Program Dear Permittee: Welcome to the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Pretreatment Program. We are pleased to announce to you that the authority for implementation ofthe National Pretreatment Program in Texas transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) on September 14, 1998. To assist with our transition we have enclosed several annual report forms, instructions, guidance documents, staff assignments and telephone contacts for you to use. Ifyou would like the electronic versions ofthe annual report forms in WordPerfect 6.0 or need further assistance, please contact any member ofthe Pretreatment team ofthe TNRCC Water Quality Division at (512) 239-4433. We are looking forward to enhanced communication among the pretreatment programs in Texas. You may fmd basic information concerning the TPDES transition on the TNRCC website at www.tnrcc.state.tx.uslwater/quality/tpdes. Sincerely, Enclosures P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 5121239·1000 • Internet address: www.tnrcc.state.tx.us Attachment 1: TNRCC Pretreatment Team and Staff Assi nments TNRCC Pretreatment Team Ms. Jill Russell Pretreatment Team Leader Wastewater Permits Section Water Quality Division (MCl48) TNRCC P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-4564; fax 512-239-4430 jrusseU@tnrcc.state.tx.us Mr. Luis Aguirre Pretreatment Coordinator Wastewater Permits Section Water Quality Division (MC 148) TNRCC P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-2517; fax 512-239-4430 laguirre@tnrcc.state.tx.us Ms. Rebecca Villalba Pretreatment Coordinator Wastewater Permits Section WiIter Quality Division (MC 148) TNRCC P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-4784; fax 512-239-4430 rvillalb@tnrcc.state.tx.us Ms. Vidya Rao Pretreatment Coordinator Wastewater Permits Section Water Quality Division (MC 148) TNRCC P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 5121239-1723; fax 512-239-4430 vrao@tnrcc.state.tx.us -------------TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSIONr ,-'"= P.o. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087' 5121239·1000 REGIONAL OFFICES I 1 -AMARILLO Regional Manager. Brad Jones 3918 Canyon Drive Amarillo, TX 79109-4996 8061353·9251 FAX: 8061358·9545 4-ARLINGTON Regional Manager. Melvin Lewis 1101 East Arkansas lane Arlington, TX 76010·6499 817/469·6750 FAX: 8171795·2519 7-MIDLAND Regional Manager. Jed Barker 3300 North ASt., Bldg. 4, Suite 107 Midland, TX 79705·5421 9151570·1359 FAX: 9151570·4795 10 -BEAUMONT Regional Manager. Vic Fair 3870 Eastex Fwy., Suite 110 Beaumont, TX 77703·1892 409/898·3838 FAX: 409/892·2119 13 -SAN ANTONIO Regional Manager· Richard Garcia 140 Heimer Rd.; Suite 360 San Antonio, TX 76232·5042 210/490·3096 FAX: 2101545-4329 South T.... Watemwte. Office 2101494·3556 FAX: 2101402-0273 1·8001733·2733 16 -LAREDO Regional Manager. Jorge L. Bacelis 1403 Seymour, Suite 2 laredo, TX 78040-8752 9561791·6611. FAX: 9561791.6716 2 -LUBBOCK Regional Manager. Jim Estes 4630 50th St., Suite 600 lubbock, TX 79414·3509 8061796·7092 FAX: 806/796·7107 5-TYLER Regional Manager. Leroy Biggers 2916 Teague Drive Tyler, TX 75701·3756 903/535·5100 FAX: 903/595·1562 8-SANANGELO Regional Manager. John Haagensen 301 W. Beauregard Ave., Suite 202 San Angelo, TX 76903·6326 915/655·9479 FAX: 915/658·5431 II -AUSTIN Regional Manager. Larry Smith 1921 Cedar Bend, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78758·5336 5121339·2929 FAX: 5121339·3795 14 -CORPUS CHRISTI Regional Manager. Buddy Stanley 6300 Ocean Drive, Suite 1200 Corpus Christi, TX 78412·5503 512/980·3100 FAX: 5121980·3101 LABORATORY Lab Manager. Jim Busceme 5144 E. Sam Houston Pkwy: N. Houston, TX 77015·3225 281/457·5229 FAX: 281/457·9107 3 -ABILENE Regional Manager • Winona Henry 209 South Danville, Suite B200 Abilene, TX 79605·1451 915/698·9674 FAX: 915/692·5869 6-ELPASO Regional Manager. Frank Espino 7500 Viscount Blvd., Suite 147 EI Paso, TX 79925·5633 9151778·9634 FAX: 9151778-4576 9-WACO Regional Manager. Gene Fulton 6801 Sanger Ave., Suite 2500 Waco, TX 76710·7807 2541751·0335 FAX: 2541772·9241 12 -HOUSTON Regional Manager. Leonard Spearman, Jr. Ass!. Reg. Mgr.· Karen Atkinson . 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H Houston, TX 77023·1486 7131767·3500 FAX: 7131767·3520 IS -HARLINGEN Regional Manager. Tony Franco 134 E. Van Buren, Suite 301 Harlingen, TX 76S5()"6607 9561425·6010 FAX: 9561412-5059 Rio Crande Wa_tor 1500 Dove Ave. McAllen. TX 78504·3439 9561664·2763 FAX: 9561664-2984 TNRCC rul.., pubUadons, .g 01 Commission meetings and other envirOnmenttl information are available (rom the {¢Je::convenience of 'fOUr computer by «_log 'he TNRCC W(J(ld Wide Web Home l'allt ovet the Internet at: htl )·llvvvvw.tnrcc.slalc.tx.us Region I 􀁾􀀠Amariflo 8061353-9251 Aml5trong Hetrlphill Briscoe Hutd'lfn:wo C.""" lipscomb Ca5ttQ M""", Childress Ochiltree Collingsworth Oldham Dallam "'''''''''De3fSmilh ......' Dooley RAndall Gray Robe",5_.Hall HanffMd Swid'\et' Hartley Wheel" Regiun (i -EI Pa..'iO '1ISmlr-96J4 a_ Hudspeth Culberson !eHOavi$ 􀁐􀁔􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁩􀁯􀀠".... Rc-ginn 8 􀁾􀀠SOln ,\ngdo 9151655-9-1.71) -MIOf't'lI-rdCo,", 􀁾􀁃􀁑􀁮􀁣􀀺􀁨􀁯􀀠R.."" Crock.. Schleid'ler Irion SoorII", KImble 5ut!on T","C"""'" .McCulloch 􀁒􀁣􀁾􀁩􀁈􀁮􀀠12 -Huuslon 71Jn61-35110 AlJstin Ham.B,.,... lilierty Chomben Ma..SOfd;o CoIotado MolrtgomUU B,.,.. Leon 6ul1eson ......... C<>'YOiI MeL.",... Falls Milam Mills Grim.. Itobertsoft """""" Hamilton San s.ba Hill Washington Rl't!,inn U .. S;,m ,\nlonio 210M')f)-JII'J6 Awco!a8_ ..-Kendall BUilt' C""",I Medina EdwW. -• .,1 mo Uvafde Gilielpie Wi(son GuadaJ.... Region 3 -Abilene 􀀹􀀱􀀵􀀱􀀶􀀹􀀸􀀭􀀹􀀶􀀷􀁾􀀠Neher .< Uano Burnet Tr.wiJ 􀁃􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁬􀀠Williamson fayeI!e 􀁒􀁬􀀧􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠16 " I.aredo 'J56n91-6611 Dimmi( M >:;\i'iiF'; 􀁾􀀻􀀧􀀬􀀺􀀢􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀠'. '," ::{ ',' " .:: },-",··t' ' ':',' Comments: ERP Review • Page 4 ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE PLAN CHECKLIST Continued) D. Enforcement Response Procedures YES NO I. a. Js: a-rc..-poase 􀁾(or all identified IV noncompliance? h. An there $tJllC.d criteria. (or e.seal81ing enforcement responw'] c. Ate there stated criteria for ee1cu)a.ting penalty amounts'! i-Is the minimum maximl.lm penalty at least $1 ,OOO.OO/day/viol8.lion U. Ate there procedures for determining "Economic: Benefit"? iii. Do penalties recover at 8. minimum. any economic benefit the IU may h&vc realized? Discussion of Enforcement Response Procedures: E. Response nme Frames 1. Does the plan/guide specify maximum time frames for initial enforcement response? 2. Does the Dlanfkuide specify maximum time frames 􀁃􀁯􀁾􀀠escalation of enforcement? Discussion of Response Time Frames: i I m. Identify (by nUe) the Officlal(s) who must Approve Each Type of Response l. Is the specific responsible individual identified for each individual (or cl ... of) enforcement response? Discuss: . IV. Discuss any Obstacles to Effective Enforcement Which you may have Identified. I ERP Review', Page 6 Attachment 7: List of Categorical Industries with Reportable Pretreatment Standards TITLE 40 -PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER I -ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SUBCHAPTER N -EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The following categories do not contain reportable pretreatment standards PART 405 -Dairy products processing point source category PART 407 -Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing point source category PART 408 -Canned and preserved seafood processing point source category PART 409 -Sugar processing point source category PART 410 -Textile mills point source category PART 411 -Cement manufacturing point source category PART 416 -[Reserved) PART 422 -Phosphate manufacturing point source category PART 424 -Ferroalloy manufacturing point source category PART 426 -Glass manufacturing point source calegory PART 427 -Asbestos manufacturing point source category PART 432 -Meat products point source category PART 434 -Coal mining point source category BPT, BAT, BCT limitations and new source performance standards PART 436 -Mineral mining and processing point source category PART 440 • Ore mining and dressing point source category PART 454 -Gum and wood chemicals manufiocturing point source category PART 457 -Explosives manufacturing point source category PART 459 -Photographic point source category PART 460 -Hospital point source category PART 463 -Plastics molding and forming point source category The following categories contain at least Qne reportable pretreatment standard PART 406 -Grain mills point source category PART 412 -Feedlots point source category PART 4 i3 -Electroplating point source category PART 414 -Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers PART 415 -Inorganic chemicals manufacturing point source category PART 417 -Soap and detergent manufacturing point source category PART 418 -Fenilizer manufacturing point source category PART 419· Petroleum refining point source category PART 420 • Iron and steel manufacturing point source category PART 421 -Nonferrous metals manufacturing point SOUrce category PART 423 -Steam electric power generating point source category PART 425 -Leather tanning and finishing point source category PART 428 -Rubber manufacturing point source category PART 429 -Timber products processing point source category PART 430 -Pulp, paper, and paperboard point source category PART 431 -The builders' paper and board mills point source category PART 433 -Metal finishing point source category PART 435 -Oil and gas extraction point source category PART 439 -Pharmaceutical manufacturing point source category PART 443 -Effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources and standards of performance and pretreatment standards for new sources for the paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt) point source category PART 446 -Paint formulating point source category PART 447 -Ink formulating point source category PART 455 -Pesticide chemicals PART 458 • Carbon black manufacturing point source category PART 461 -Battery manufacturing point source category PART 464 -Metal molding and casting point source category PART 465 -Coil coating point source category PART 466 -Porcelain enameling point source category PART 467 -Aluminum forming point source category PART 468 -Copper forming point source category PART 469 -Electrical and electronic components point source category PART 471 -Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders point source category United States Engineering and Analysts Phone (202) 260-7120 Environmental Protection Division (4303) Fax (202) 260-7185 Agency Washington, DC 20460 September 1 ssa 3 EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts in the Effluent Guidelines Program IndustrylSubject Regulation Person Phone (Area Code 202) Acid Mine Drainage Bill Telliard 260-7134 Airports -see Deicing Animal Feedlots Operations 40 CFR 412 Jan Goodwin 260-7152 Aquaculture -see Fish Hatcheries Asphalt -see Paving and Roofing Materials Canmaking -see Coil Coating Centralized Waste Treatment Jan Matuszko 260-9126 Joe Vitalis 260-7172 Alternate Test Procedures (ATPs) 40 CFR 136 Maria Gomez-Taylor 260-1639 Khouane Ditlhavong 260-6115 Aluminum Forming 40 CFR 467 George Jet! 260-7151 Analytical Methods Support 40 CFR 136 Bill Telliard 260-7134 (Also see PBMS) Maria Gomez-Taylor 260-1639 Anna Kinney 260-7127 Ron Jordan 260-7115 Asbestos Manufacturing 40 CFR427 Ron Kirby 260-7168 Batlery Manufacturing 40 CFR461 George Jetl 260-7151 Carbon Black Manufacturing 40 CFR458 George Jet! 260-7151 Cattle Feedlots 40 CFR 412 Ron Jordan 260-7115 Cement Manufacturing 40CFR411 Ron Kirby 260-7168 Tim Connor 260-3164 2 EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts Chemicals -see Gum & Wood, Inorganic, Organic, Pesticides Cluster Rule -see Pulp, Paper. and Paperboard Coal Mining 4OCFR434 Bill Telliard 260-7134 (Coal Remining, Western Coal,etc.) Joe Vitalis 260-7172 Coil Coating 40 CFR465 George Jet! 260-7151 (includes Canmaking) Cooling Water Intake Structures 40 CFR 401.14 Deborah Nagle 260·2656 [Clean Water Act· Section 316(b)] Copper Forming 40 CFR468 George Jet! 260-7151 Dairy Products Processing 40 CFR405 Don Anderson 260·7189 De-icing Shari Zuskin 260·7130 Detection Issues Bill Telliard 260-7134 ( Low Level Delection) Henry Kahn 260·5408 Development Documents (To Order) -see Waler Resource Cenler Docket -see Waler Docket Drinking Water Methods -see Analytical Methods Bill Telliard 260-7134 Maria Gomez-Taylor 260-1639 Drum Reconditioning Woody Forsht 260-7190 Economic Analysis Neil Patel 260-5405 Effluent Guidelines Plan Eric Strassler 260-7150 [Clean Water Act -Section 304(m)] Effluent Guidelines Task Force Beverly Randolph 260-5373 Electrical & Electronic Components 40 CFR469 George Jet! 260-7151 Electroplating 40 CFR 413 Steve Geil 260-9817 Environmental Monitoring Methods Index (EMMI) Marion Thompson 260·7117 Maria Gomez-Taylor 260-1639 Ethanol for Fuel Bill Telliard 260-7134 Explosives Manufacturing 40 CFR457 Joe Vltalis 260-7172 EPA Industrial Wastewall>r Contacts 3 Feedlots -see Animal Feedlots Operation FerroalJoy Manufacturing 40CFR424 George Jett 260-7151 (Nitrogen & Phosphate) Foods -see Dairy, Fruits & Vegetables, Grain Mills, Meat Products, Poultry, Seafood, Sugar Foundries -see Metal Molding & Casting Incinerators -see Industrial Waste Combustors (formerly titled Incinerators) Low BTU Gasification Bill T elliard Fertilizer Manufacturing 40CFR418 Anna Kinney 260-7127 Fish Hatcheries Don Anderson 260-7189 Foods and Beverages, Miscellaneous Don Anderson 260-7189 Fruits & Vegetables Processing 40 CFR 407 Don Anderson 260-7189 Glass Manufacturing 40CFR426 Wendy Smith 260-7184 Gold Mining -see Ore Mining & Dressing Ron Kirby 260-7168 Grain Mills 40 CFR 406 Don Anderson 260-7189 Gum & Wood Chemicals Manufacturing 40 CFR 454 Don Anderson 260-7189 Hospitals 40CFR460 Frank Hund 260-7182 Industrial Laundries Marta Jordan 260-0817 Industrial Waste Combustors Samantha Hopkins 260-7149 Ink Formulating 40CFR447 Don Anderson 260-7189 Inorganic Chemicals 40 CFR 415 Anna Kinney 260-7127 Internet Information Bev Randolph 260-5373 Iron & Steel Manufacturing 40 CFR 420 George Jet! 260-7151 Kevin Tingley 260-9843 Landfill Leachate Mike Ebner 260-5397 John Tinger 260-4992 Leather Tanning & Finishing 40 CFR 425 Don Anderson 260-7189 260-7134 EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts 4 Marine Discharges from Vessels of the Greg Stapleton 260·0141 Armed Forces [CWA 312(n)] Ron Jordan 260·7115 (Sometimes called UNDS) Meat Products 40 CFR 432 Don Anderson 260-7189 Metal Finishing 40CFR433 Steve Geil 260-9817 Metal Molding & Casting (Foundries) 40CFR464 George Jett 260-7151 Metal Products and Machinery Steve Geil 260-9817 Mike Ebner 260-5397 Tim Connor 260-3164 Mineral Mining & Processing 40 CFR 436 Ron Kirby 260·7168 Mining -see Acid Mine Drainage, Coal Mining, Gold Mining, Mineral Mining & Processing, and Ore Mining & Dressing Nonferrous Metals Forming 40 CFR 471 George Jett 260·7151 (includes Metal Powders) Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 40CFR 421 George Jett 260-7151 Oil and Gas Extraction 40 CFR435 Offshore Ron Jordan 260·7115 , Coastal/Onshore Chuck White 260-5411 Synthetic Drilling FlUids Joe Daly 260-7186 Organic Chemicals, Plastics & Paint Formulating 40 CFR446 Don Anderson 260-7189 ' Paving and Roofing Materials Performance-Based Measurement Ore Ore Mining & Dressing 40 CFR 440 Ron Kirby 260-7168 Synthetic Fibers 40CFR414 George Jett 260-7151 (Tars and Asphalt) 40 CFR 443 Bill Telliard 260-7134 Systems (PBMS) 40 CFR 136 Khouane Ditthavong 260-6115 Pesticide Chemicals 40CFR455 Shari Zuskin 260-7130 Mar\! Rubin 260-3028 Petroleum Refining 40 CFR 419 Ron Kirby 260-7168 pH Effluent Limitations under 40 CFR 401.17 Henry Kahn 260-5408 Continuous 􀁍􀁾􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠 EPA Industrial Wastewater CQntects 5 Frank Hund Marv Rubin Anna Kinney Joe Daly Woody Forsht Bill Telliard Maria Gomez-Taylor Joe Vitalis George Jet! Jan Goodwin Joe Vitalis Don Anderson Troy Swackhammer Don Anderson Joe Vitalis Don Anderson Steve Geil Woody Forsht Woody Forsht Henry Kahn Joe Daly 260-7182 260-3028 260-7127 260-7186 260-7190 260-7134 260-1639 260-7172 260-7151 260-7152 260-7172 260-7189 260-7128 260-7189 i I ,260-7172 260-7189, .1 I I 260-9817 260-7190 260-7190 260-5408 260-7186 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 40CFR439 Phosphate Manufacturing 40CFR422 Photographic Processing 40CFR459 Placer Mining -see Ore Mining & Dressing Plastics Molding & Forming Pollutants· Lists, Types, References Conventional-CWA Sec. 304(a){4) Toxic-CWA Section 307(a){1) Priority Pollutants (Appendix A) EAD Analytes Porcelain Enameling Poultry Processing Pretreatment (or call Permits DiviSion/Pretreatment Branch: 202-260-7539) Printing & Publishing Publications -see Water Resource Center 40CFR463 40 CFR 401.16 40 CFR 401.15 40 CFR 423 40 CFR 466 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Rubber Manufacturing SeafOOd Processing Secondary Treatment (Caff Permits Division @260-9545) Shipbuilding Soap & Detergent Manufacturing Solvent Recovery Statistical Analysis Steam Electric Power Generation 40 CFR 430 40 CFR 428 40CFR 408 40 CFR 133 40CFR417 40CFR423 6 EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts Sugar Processing Superfund Sites -Discharges to POTWs (Guidance Document) Synthetic-based Drilling Fluids (SBF) Textile Mills Timber Products Processing Toxicityl WET Testing Transportation Equipment Cleaning (Tank Cleaning) 40CFR409 40 CFR 435 40 CFR 410 40 CFR 429 UNDS -Uniform National Discharge Standards Urban Stormwater Study Used Oil Reclamation Don Anderson Woody Forsht Joe Daly Hugh Wise Don Anderson Bill Telliard Marion Thompson John Tinger Jesse Pritts Ron Jordan Greg Stapleton Eric Strassler Jesse Pritts Ron Kirby 260-7189 260-7190 260-7186 260-7177 260-7189 260-7134 260-7117 260-4992 260-7191 260-7115 260-0141 260-7150 260-7191 260-7168 Waste Treatment -see Centralized Waste Treatment, Industrial WastE! Combustors, Landfill Leachate Water Docket (East Tower Basement) Water Intake Structures -CWA 316(b) (see Cooling Water Intake Structures) Water Resource Center (WRC) -Publications Automated Document Ordering (East Tower Basement) Water Supply Web Sites -see Internet Information WET -see Toxicity Colleen Campbell Joe Daly Mary Conway Don Anderson 260-3027 260-7186 260-2814 260-7786 260-7189 Attachment 8: List of TPDES Pretreatment Program Coordinators and Multijurisdictional Partners TI'DES Pretrealmcnt ('rogrum Coordinators List FIRST LAST MAIL CIlY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Brian Socia P.O. Box 60 Abilene TX 79604-0060 (915) (915) 548-2237 548-2017 Don Reynolds P.O. Box 1971 Amarillo TX 79105-1971 (806) (806) 342-1556 342-1529 ------Tony Canales P.O. Box 1088 Austin TX 78767-1088 (512) (512) 912-6060 912-6260. 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭PameiaL. Kroupa 2123 Market Baytown TX 77571 (281) (281)420420·5308 5322 Gloria Broussard P.O. Box 3827 BeOlumonl TX 77704 (409) 866-0023 -Fabian Jezjerski P.O. Box 1059 Brenham TX 77834·1059 (409) (409) 836·7911 836·7605 Maribel Hinojosa P.O. Box 3270 Brownsville TX 78520 (956) 982·6387 Jim Macke P.O. Box 1389 Brownwood TX 76804 (915) (915) 643-0570 646-0938 , Gary Kasner P.O. Box 1000 Bryan TX 77805 (409) (409) , 361·3697 361·3822 I ----------------Charles Mears P,O. Box 657 Cleburne TX 76031 (817) (817) i, 645·0957 645-0926 , Ron Commesser P.O. Box 3066 Conroe TX 77305 (409) ron _ commesser@air·water,eom 760-4634 ----------Sieve Klepper P.O. Box 9277 Corpus Christi TX TX 78469-9277 (512) 􀁾􀀵􀀱􀀲􀀩􀀠857·1804 857-1889 ,----------------Larry R. Murray 200 N, 12th Street Corsicana TX 75110 (903) (903)654654-4888 4892 Dec. 31,1998 Page 1 ---------------T -------------------􀀢􀁾􀁾􀀠IFIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Cynthia Belvin 6500 W. Singleton Dallas TX 75212 (972) (972) Blvd. 263·2251 264-l382 Alan Aulenbach 500 S. Ervay, Ste Dallas TX 75201 (214) (214) aaulen@dww.ci.dallas.tx.us i600B 670-4623 670-3879 . Jimmy Moon P.O. Box 347 Denison TX 75020 (903) (903) 464-4488 464-4499 --------􀁾􀀠Jimmy Coulter 1100 Mayhill Road Denton TX 76201 (940) 383-7533 -----------Cindy Edgar P.O. Box 511 ElPaso TX 79925 (915) (915) 594·5595 594·5699 ------Curtis Looman P.O. Box 220 Ennis TX 75120 (972) (972) 875-3741 875·9086 -----------Sebastian Fichera 920 Fourier Fort Worth TX 76102·3456 (817) (817) sfiche l@cLfort·worth.tx.us 871-8305 871-8566 .--------f-RudyG. PacJik Drawer J Gainesville TX 76240 (940) 668-4544 Dennis Zajack P.O. Box 779 Galveston TX 77550 (409) 744-6367 K.yA. Bullard P.O. Box 1049 Greenville TX 75403-1049 (903) (903) 457-2991 457-2989 Sergio Zamarron P.O. Box 531888 Harlingen TX 78553 (210) (210) 430-8166 430-8511 W.E. Scalero 910 Bay Area Blvd. Houston TX 77058-2064 (281) (281) "wscalero@gcwda.com" 488-4115 488-3331 Bob Hunt 7101 Renwick Street Houston TX 77081 (713) (713) 295-5517 295-5506 -------Dec. 31,1998 Page 2 . -------------FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL -----... Debra Daugette 1212 Avenue M Huntsville TX 77340 (409) 295·5957 ---------David Fain P.O. Box 1390 Jacksonville TX 75766 (903) (903) 586-3510 5864609 --------Karen Emadiazer P.O. Box 299002 Lewisville TX 75029·9002 (972) (972) 219·3546 219·3508 ------Kathy Woodrow P.O. Box 1952 Longview TX 75606 (903) 758·2083 . Mary Gonzales P.O. Box 2000 Lubbock TX 79457 (806) (806) 1ubbock.waterrec.mgonzaleS@mail.cLlubbock.tx.us Hinkley 767·3229 765·9606 ----Debra Cassidy P.O. Drawer 190 Lufkin TX 75902-0190 (409) (409) 633·0288 634-7017 ---'--'--'1--..._.. Jerry Cothron P.O. Box 698 Marshall TX 75670 (903) 9354485 Judy Philips P.O. Box 220 Mcl'Uen TX 78505 (956) (956) utility@Utility.ci.mcallen.tx.us 972·7150 972·7155 -------------------Maria Cortes-P.O. Box 339 Mineral Wells TX 76068 (940) (940) Aoena 325·5027 325·1319 Heary Simon P.O. Bo)(648 Nacogdoches TX 75961 (409)564(409)560· 5046 5137 ----Mark Dingeldein P.O. Box 310289 New TX 78131·0289 (830)629· Braunfels 8474 ---... -, Greg White P.O Box 4398 Odessa TX 79760 (915) (915) 3354625 335-4698 -----------Bob Follett P.O. Box 1970 Palestine TX 75802 (903) 731·8494 _.. L... . --_._..........__.. ---_.--_.-Dec. 31,1998 Page 3 ------FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL 􀁾􀁾􀀠Rodney Brashier P.O. Box 9037 Paris TX 75460 (903) 784-2464 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Charles Shajari 1',0. Box 1089 Port Arthur TX 77641-1089 (409) 983-8227 Robert Martinez 517 Mission Road San Antonio TX 78210 (210) (210) rmt.z@saws,org 704-1103 704·1146 Frances Plocek 630 East Hopkins San Marcos TX 78666 (512) (512) fplocek@centuryinter. nel 393-8005 392-2625 Beth Brown 100 S. Rnsk Sherman TX 75090 (903) 892·7256 􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠Tommy Savell 1',0. Box 238 South Houston TX 77587 (713) (713) tesavell@aol.com 947-7700 947·8958 -----􀁾􀁾􀀠Lynne Burkhalter 2331 South Main St. Stafford TX 77477 (281)(281) 499·2041 499-4223 Johnny L. Davis 1'.0, Box 364 Stephenville TX 76401 (254) (254) jdaviS@0mi,ms.ch2m.com 965-3668 965·0752 -----􀁾􀁾􀀠Dave Reed 125 S, Davis Street Sulphur TX 75482 (903) (903) csulphur@koyote,com Springs 885·7541 439-2092 -----Ken Zachary 750 Duck Creek Sunnyvale TX 75182 (972) Way 203-4325 -----􀁾􀁾􀀠Jerry Kean 2 North Main Temple TX 76503 (254) 770-5621 Lisa White 1',0, Box 2008 Texarkana TX 75504 (903) 798·3870 -----Monty Shank 1',0. Box 2039 Tyler TX 75710 (903) (903) 531-1239 531·1259 -------Dec. 31, 1998 Page 4 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠-------FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL --------John C. Smith P.O. Box 2085 Victoria TIC 77902-2085 (512) (512) jsmith@lisd.net 578-2878 578-9039 GilbertP. Gregory P.O. Box 7555 Waco TIC 76714-7555 (254) (817) gi1bertg@brazos.org 776-1441 772-5780 David Bailey 401 S. Rogers Waxahachie TX 75165 (972) (972) 937-2624 937-5518 Barbara Brady Kerr P.O. Box 255 Weatherford TX 76086 (817) (817) "wOO0119@airmail.net" 598·4275 598-4140 -------Gerald Gross P. O. Box 1431 Wichita Falls TX 16307 (940) (940) 761-1873 161-8811 John Montgomery P.O. Box 2408 Wylie TX 15098 (972) (972) 􀀧􀁾􀁭􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁧􀁯􀀱􀀴􀀷􀁀􀁡􀁯􀁬􀀮􀁣􀁯􀁭􀀢􀀠442-5405 442-5405 -----------------Dec. 31,1998 PageS TPDES Pretreatment Program Multijurisdictional Partners FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Neil Gayden P.O. Box 144 Addison TX 75001 (972) 450-2821 (972) 931·6643 Keith Thompson P.O. Box 144 Addison TX 75001 (972) 450-2873 (972) 450-2837 Patrick Akin P.O. Box 231 -Arlington TX 76004 (817) 459·5902 (817) 459-5909 ---------Dan Washington P.O Box 800040 Balch Springs TX 15180-0040 (972) 286-1666 (972) 286-7809 Richard Mills 1813 Reliance Pkwy Bedford TX 76021 (817) 952-2136 (817) 952-2240 Jim Boecher P.O. Box 120 Belton TX 16513 Mitchell Rivers 121 Mercedes Benbrook TX 16121 249-1250 249-6965 Bill Davison 141 W. Renfro St. Burleson TX 76028 295-1113 441-3928 ----------Ta Soriaga P.O.lI0535 Carrollton TX 15011-0535 (972) 466-3175 (972) 466-3115 Perry Harts P.O. Box 96 Cedar Hill TX 75104 (912) 291-5126 (972) 291-5107 Kelley Howell P.O. Box 185 Colleyville TX 76034 (817) 540-0609 (972) 354-0469 Perri Kittles 500 Southwestern Blvd. Coppell TX 15019 (972) 304-3500 (972) 304--3514 Gene Mason P. O. Drawer 747 Crowley TX -------76036 297-9711 ' 297-6178 ----------Dec. 31,1998 Page 1 ------TPDES Pretreatment Program Multijurisdictional Partners -----FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Cynthia Belvin 6500 W Singleton Blvd. Dallas TX 15212 263-2251 264-\382 Alan Aulenbach 500 S. Ervay, Ste 600 B Dallas TX 15201 (214) (214) aaulen@dww.ci.dallas.tx.us 670-4623 610-3819 Kerry Shoemake 4125 West Clarendon Dallas TX 15211 (214) (214) 331-2618 330-5483 GeneR. Smallwood P.O. Box 8005 Dallas TX 15205 (214) (214) 363-1644 987-5429 James Fisher 4700 Drexel Drive Dallas TX 75205 (214) (214) 521-4161 559-9335 --------Rick Reeler P.O. Box 619428 Dallas-Ft. TX 75261-9428 (214) (214) Worth Airport .. 574-9910 574·5509 ---------Harlyn Farrell 620 N. Westmoreland DeSolo TX 75115 (972) (912) 230-5112 230·5475 . , Joel Dougherty P.O. Box 380280 Duncanville TX 75138·0280 (972) (972) 780-4937 780-4949 Bill Wilborn P.O. Box 380280 Duncanville TX 75138-0280 (972) (972) 180-5066 780-4949 -------Paul Wren:zenski 201 North Ector Dr. Euless TX 76039-3595 (811) (817) 685-1588 685·1416 Jim Craig 212 N. Race SI. Everman TX 16140 293·0525 551-7549 . Alvin BlackR.S. P.O. Box 819010 Farmers TX 75381·9010 (972) (972) Branch 919·2539 241·6305 ------------Dec. 31, 1998 Page 2 TPDES Pretreatment Program Multijurisdictional Partners FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Alvin Black R.S. P.O. Box 819010 Fanners Branch TX 75381-9010 (972) 919-2539 (972) 241-6305 Charlie James 100 Town Plaza Ferris TX 75125 (912) 842-5761 (972) 544-8259 Michael Duehring 3415 Horton Rd. Forest Hill TX 76119 534-3591 534-4207 Sebastian Fichera 920 Fourier Fort Worth TX 76102-3456 (817) 871-8305 (817) 871·8566 sfichel@ci.fort-worth.tx.us Don Newton 160 I Bell Avenue Fort Worth TX 76131 232-0451 232-4682 Gary Hartwell, P.E. P.O. Drawer 1100 Frisco TX 75034 (912) 335-5520 Monte Taylor 6720 Telephone Rd. Ft. Worth TX 76135 237-1211 237-1333 RCmer Burdette 5824 Menymount Rd. Ft. Worth TX 76107 737·3127 737·3130 John Cherry 3201 Diana Dr. Ft. Worth TX 76118 595·6626 595·6644 Ken Staggs 4900 River Oaks Blvd. Ft. Worth TX 76114 626·5421 624·2154 Nancy Tsivis 311 Burton Hill Rd. Ft. Worth TX 76114 738·3673 738·0535 Charles Talbat 1605 Edgecliff Rd. -Ft. Worth TX 76134 293-4313 293-8726 Ken Williams . P.P.O. Box 534045 Grand Prairie TX 75053·4045 (972) 237-8055 (972) 262-4232 Matt Singleton . P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine TX 76099 (817) 481·0417 (817) 424·0511 -Brad Robinson P. O. Box 14246 Haltom City TX 76117 834·9036 831-7855 Dec. 31, 1998 Page 3 TPDES Pretreatment Program Multijurisdietional Partners Dec. 31, 1998 Page 4 STATE TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX ZIP 76054 76054 75141 75015-2288 76248 76060 75146·940 76063 75069 75185·0137 75185·0137 76180 PHONE 788-7205 (917) 788-7078 (972) 225-3380 (972) 721·2283 (817) 431·1517 478·5418 (972) 227-6075 (817) 477·2248 (972) 542-2675 (972) 216-6941 (972) 216-6941 (817) 581-5521 FAX EMAIL 788-7214 (817) 788-7C97 (972) 225-5559 (972) 721·2280 (817) 431-2051 561-4017 (972) 227-7220 (817) 473·2462 (972) 329-8593 (972) 329-8)93 (817) 656-7)38 FIRST , Ron Lisa Earl Diane Gerald John Steve Robert Peter Mike Edward Kevin LAST Owens Fowler Kendrick Malas Cooksey Laporte Sacharko Stephens Nylec Screws Sims Miller MAIL 1505 Precinct Line Rd. 1505 Precinct Line Rd. P.O. Box 152283 P.O. Box 770 P. O. Box 268 P.O. Box 940 1305 E. Broad Street P. 0 Box 517 P.O. Box 850137 P.O Box 850137 P.O. Box 820609 CITY Hurst Hurst Hutchins Irving Ketler Kennedale Lancaster Mansfield McKinney Mesquite Mesquite North Richland Hil ls TPDES Pretreatment Program Multijurisdictional Partners FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Lee Barry P. O. Drawer 18609 North Richhllld Hills TX 76180 . 581-5671 656-7503 Ron Gibson P. O. Box 13210 Pantego TX 76013 274-2115 265-1375 Steve Berry P. 0 Box 860358 Plano TX 75086-0358 Bob Galvan P.O. Box 830309 Richardson TX 75083 (972) 238-4172 Tim McKinley, R.S. P.O. Box 839309 Richardson TX 75083-0309 (972) 238-4167 (972) 644-2618 Tracey Harring 221 East Main Street Round Rock TX 78664 (512) 218-5,59 (512) 218-5563 Randy Newsome P. O. Box 79070 Saginaw TX 76179 232-2641 232-4644 Robert Whitehead 667 N. Carroll Southlake TX 76092 (817) 481-5581 (817) 488-6796 Howard Christian P.O. Box 110 Sugar Land TX 77487 (281) 275-2456 (281) 275-2465 Kent Kaugbman P.O. Box 1737 Temple TX 76503-1737 (254) 742-0642 (254) 742-0843 John Rickman P.O. Box 310 Terrell TX 75160 (972) 551-6631 (972) 551-6682 Lynn Short P.O. Box 1758 Victoria TX 77902-1758 (512) 572-2749 (512) 575-0977 Ishort@victoriatx.org Lanelle Belicek P. O. Box 1758 Victoria TX 77902-1758 (512) 572-2749 (512) 575-0997 "Ibelicek@victoriatx..orgl l Dec. 31,1998 Page 5 TPDES Pretreatment Program Multijurisdictional Partners FIRST LAST MAIL CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL Joe Burgess P.O. Box 2570 Waco TX 76702.2570 (254) 750·8004 (254) 750-8074 Jerry Senkyr 214 Meadow Park Dr. White Settlement TX 76108 367·3762 367-2534 John Mosley 128N. Dallas Ave. -Wilmer TX 75172 (972) 441-6373 (972) 441-6224 Mike Phillips 2000 HWY 78 North Wylie TX 75098 Dec. 31, 1998 Page 6 Attachment 9: EPA's Executive Summary of Industrial User Significant Noncompliance Determination • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF WATER All Approved POTW Pretreatment Program Coordinators: Enclosed for your information is the executive' summary of an EPA evaluation of compliance by significant industrial users with pretreatment standards and requirements. The report, entitled "statistical ASf*!ssment of, National Significant Industrial User Noncompliance" (June 1992), presents data which suggests that there is a significant problem with industrial users' compliancewith pretreatment standards and requirements. EPA undertook this study to independently determine, with known statistical confidence, the level of significant noncompliance (SNC) by significant industrial users of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The study evaluated noncompliance at a scientifically selected sample of 640 industrial facilities discharging into 60 POTWs across the country. The central purpose of the study was to establish baseline data using a definition of SNC which EPA adopted on July 24, 1990. The study results will be used to measure future trends in industrial compliance. The most significant result described in the report is that 54 percent of the 30,000 significant industries nationwide would have been in SNC with effluent limits or reporting requirements, or both, using the Federal definition promulgated in July 1990. The study looked at industrial performance for the 1990 calendar year. The values indicate the percentage of industries which would have been in SNC some time during the 1990 calendar year. The study did not attempt to identify whether or when industries returned to compliance during the year, either voluntarily or through enforcement by the POTWs. Significant noncompliance was the focus of this study because it is one area of implementation for which EPA had little consistent, verifiable data. There are, of course, other programmatic measures of POTW implementation, including: percent of permits issued, number of inspections or sampling events performed, number of enforcement actions taken, interference or pass through of the treatment plant and improvements in sludge quality. All of these elements must be examined in concert to, determine the overall health of the pretreatment program. 2 While other data indicate j:hat"significant prog'ress has been made in pretreatment'over the last decade, the high level of SNC identified in this study must not be allowed to continue in the future. Clearly EPA', state and local officials need to improve efforts to ensure that industrial facilities are aware of pretreatment requirements and that they take necessary steps to consistently 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁹􀁾􀁩􀁴􀁨􀀠all pretreatment 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁳􀀠and requirements. To address the problems identified in this study, POTWs,need to ensure that they are correctly identifying SIUs which fall into SNC and that prompt action is taken to ensure that SIUs take appropriate corrective action. We have enclosed a copy of the SNC methodology (September 9, 1991) which provides guidance on the proper way to apply the July 1990 definition of significant noncompliance. In addition to increased enforcement, POTWs also need to expand outreach activities to ensure that industries are aware of all applicable Federal, State and local pretreatment requirements. EPA plans to review its oversight to ensure that appropriate emphasis is placed on industrial compliance in the future. At the same time, in our POTW training program we will increase emphasis on SIU SNC in order to assure consistent application of these criteria. We will also continue to aggressively enforce against SIUs and POTWs which fail to meet their pretreatment obligations under the law. Finally, EPA intends to conduct a broader study of industrial compliance next fiscal year and will involve outside parties in the evaluation. We will also repeat the statistical study from time t,o time to ensure that our conventional data on industrial compliance is accurate. EPA, States and POTWs must work together in resolving the under,lying conditions which give rise to noncompliance. To that end, if you need further assistance in ,addressing problems with industi':i,al compliance please contact your State o'r Regional Pretreatment Coordinator. For more, inf9rmation on the SNC study please call Greg Marshall of my staff at (202) 260-7745. Sincerely yours, /Y10􀀬􀁾􀁪􀁦􀀧􀁻􀁦􀁁􀀠J 􀁾􀁻􀁾􀀨􀀳􀁫 􀁾􀁌􀁣􀁢􀁡􀁥􀁬􀀠􀁂􀁾􀁉􀀠􀁃􀁾􀁫􀀠 Director Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance' I .I I I I , ,;.1 ,J Enclosures EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The General Prcueatment Regu\atiQll5 [40 Code of Federal Regu\atioll5 (CPR) 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁴􀀠403] require Control Authorities [StatesfI'errilOries or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (PO'IWs») 10 develop, implemem, and enforce comprehell5ive prcueatmellt programs 10 regulate industrial wastewater discharges inlO POTWs. Thirty-eight states have pretreatment programs. Five others have elected 10 operate state-run programs in lieu of requiring local programs.I In the absence of an approved state program, EPA assumes responsibility for running. the prcueatment program. At the. time of this study (1991), there were 1,484 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved POTW pretreatment programs Nationwide and aPproximately 27,(01) Significant Industrial Users (SIDs) discbarging 10 these POTWs. Once approved, local POTW programs are overseen by the Approval Authority (EPA or approved State Agencies). Ultimate respoll5ibility for this oversight rests 􀁷􀁩􀁬􀁾􀀠EPA's Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance. As part of its oversigbt program, EPA bas establisbed criteria, known as Reportable Noncompliance Criteria (RNC). 10 evaluate POTW pretreatment program implementation and enforcement. One element of these criteria. 'enforcemellt effectiveness,' considers the Significant Noncompliance (SNC) rate of SIUs. Section 403.8{f)(2)(vii) of the General Pretreatment Regulatioll5 defines SIU SNC (see also Appendix A). On September 9. 1991, EPA issued a memorandum clarifying procedures 10 calculate SIU SNC (see Appendix B). To enable EPA 10 fiilfill its oversight respoIl5ibilities, the Agency established a system, known as the Pretreatment Permits Enforcement Tracking System (PPETS), 10 track POTW compliance with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and approved pretreatment program. Data for this system are primarily obtained from POTW performance reports and POTW interviews during audits and inspectioll5'conducted by State and Regional personnel. EPA undertook this study 10 independently determine, with known statistical confidence. the level of SID SNC with 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠standards, and seif-monilOring and ·reporting requirements. Since both 'KnOwn as 403.IO{e) States: Vermont. Connecticut, Mississippi, Alabama, and Nebraska. r:--l I.::.-...!-J the definition and calculation of SNC are newly promulgated (and in fact, postdate the stl.ldy period). this study serves as a baseline for identifying future SNC trends. Specifica1ly, the results of this study cannot be compared with PPETs data for the same periDd since the application of SNC at, any given,POTW may have differed from the 1991 National methodology. EPA may repeat the study from time to time as a means of independently verifying future data on the level of SIU SNC reported by PQIWs. Therefore, findings from this stl.ldy on SNC rates are strictly baseline estimates that can . . be compared against futorePOTW estimates of SIU SNC only. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF 'llIE STUDY The PUl]lOse of the study was to establish an independent baseline against which to measure future SNC trends using the definition promul.llated in Iuly 1990. With that in mind, the study evaluated SNC that occurred in calendar year 1m, using the National SNC methodology distributed in September 1991. Study results should not be used to judge the accuracy of past POlW reporting of SID SNC since past SNC determinations were not necessarily calculated using current Federal regulations or the recent EPA methodology. The scope of the study included a population of 60 POIWs from which 64() SIU tiles were randomly.selected for evaluation. The POlWs selected represent all States except Alaska, Hawaii, and the State-run programs under 403.10(e).2 The studyPOTWs included small (1-19 SlUs), medium (2Q-.75 SlUs) and large (> 75 SlUs) programs. Approximately SO percent of the SIDs evaluate:! i:: the study are subject to. National Cate,gorical Pretreatment Standards. The study evaluated three aspects of the program during calendar year 1990: (I) the occurrence of SID noncompliance with local control mechanism (i.e., pennit) requirements; (2) the occurrence of SID SNC with these samerequiremems; and (3) whether permits· issued to SIDs which were effective during calendar year 1990 included all limits (Federal, State and l<;lcal) and monitoring/reponing requirements required by regulation.' Industry compliance was evaluated against permit requirements rather than the Federal swidards to be comparable with subsequent SNC detenninations made by '403.10(e) States: Vennont, Connecticut, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Alabama were not included in the study as these States are not reported in PPETS. 'In some instances. where questions arose, reviewers used additional infonnation (such as pennit applications, sewer use ordinances, and meeting ootes). 'j EXEClmVE SUMMARY POTWs implementing the program (and future PPETS data). SNC detamiD.ations .weee based on EPA's regulatory definiUon promulgated on Iuly 24, 1990, and the September 9, 1991. med!odology. This study was limited to a review of information contained in SIU files. . Since this study employed the new regulatory definition and methodology of SNC, its results em not be compared with previously collected information. For example, since POTWs mayor may not have been using the same criteria as in this study to evaluate SNC, SNC rates determined in this study and the SNC rates reported by POTWs will not matdI. Additionally, no effort was made to determine whether SlUs recumed to compliance during the evaluation period. Therefore, the report does not quantify the universe of SlUs currently violating pretreatment standards and requirements.. Rather, it identifies the percent of SlUs which would have been in SNC with EPA's current definition of SNC at some point during calendar year 1990. Similarly, the study did not evaluate the enforcement 􀁾􀁥􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁥􀀨􀁳􀀩􀀠taken by POTWs or State or Federal Agencies in response to SIU SNC. Finally, it should be noted that violation of a discharge standard by an SID does not alone indiCate that receiving waters are being impaired or degraded by that industrial user. MErHOOOLOGY Prior to beginning the study, EPA established, as a goal, the identification of the National level of SIU SNC with 9S percent confidence and a Standard Error (SE) of no more than ±Spercent. To achieve this goal, five activities had to be undertaken: 1. Develop an appropriate statistical protocol for selecting the study-P01W and SID populations. The protocol employed a probability-based. two-phase file selection scheme that first selected a specified number of PON programs from the most current Agency list. and then selected files at random from each chosen POTW. 2. Develop a checklist to e;-:!:.:::: 􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀡􀁬􀀠􀁰􀁾􀀡􀀬􀀡􀀢􀁩...nll SllI comllliance with those permits. These materials weee field tested at 9 P01Ws prior to the assessment and revised accordingly. 3. Implement fUll-scale file reviews on at least 600 SIUs at 60 study-PONs between Iune and September 1991: 4.' Incorporate stringent Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QAlQC) protocols, including: .. A core group of trained inspectors to perform the file reviews . ExEct.rrM: SUMMARY • Field quality .assurance checks 10 ensure .:Qmistalcy of Utt=precation • Cl'OSKhecb of the checklist informat!'ln prior 10 data eatry • Double eatry of all file review data 10 ensure accuracy in data eatry operations. 5. Perform a statistical analysis of the results of the file reviews and evaluate the findings. FINDINGS The SEiConfidenc:e Level results, SIU SNC findings; aad permit evaluations are s1lllllllMized below. See Chapter 2 and Appendices D, E, F, and G of the report for more deWIs on the findings of the study_ Standard Error CSElfConfjdence Level The desired SE and .:Qnfidence level were not achieved because: (I) the prescudy estimates of SNe were much lower than !he accual observations of the scudy; (2) the SNe rates from P01W to POTW, ho!h wi!hin and among the geographic areas scudied, were highly variable; and (3) PPETS estimates of SIUs at the study-PO'IWs proved inaccurate. Refer 10 Chapter 7 for a more complete discussion of why' the goal of 9S percent confidence and a SE of no more than ± 5 percent was not achieved in the study_ The reader should note that the findings are 􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠first as !he 'most probable value" and second as the 90 percent confidence interval. The rates at the lower end of the range have an associated confidence level of 9S percent. For example, the finding that '35 percent of SIUs were in SNe with discharge standards.' means that the most probable value is 3S percent and there is 9S percent confidence that the,SNC rate with discharge standards is at least 24 percent. sruSNC These 1990 SIU SNC levels are based on four 6-month evaluation periods. Specifically, !he ,dods include the 6-month periods ending March 31. 1990; June 30, 1990; September 30. 1990; and December 31, 1990. Therefore. determination of SNe required a review of 15 months of SIU data (i.e., October 1, 1989, through December 31, 1990). The numbers presented indicate the percent of SIUs idemified in SNC at least once durb:lg the evaluation period. As Such, these nu:mbers are not indicative of th.e SNC rate at any given point of time durb:lg 1990. • 35 percem of SIUs would have been in SNC (as currently defined by EPA) with discharge standards (categorical standards and local limits). There is 90 percent confidence the value falls between 24 perceIIt and 46 percent. • 36 percent of SIUs would have been in SNC (as currently defined by EPA) with pretreatment self-monitoring and reporting requirements. There is 90 percem confidence the value falls between 20 percent and 52 percent. • 54 percem Jf fIUs would have been in SNC (as currently defined by EPA) with discharge standards and/or self-monitoring and reporting requirements. There is 90 percent confidence the value falls between 32 percent and 75 percent. • The study reveals DO statistically significant differences between categorical SIU and noncategorical SIU"SNC rates for siandards, mOnitoring/reporting. or overall standards/monitoring and reporting. SIU Permit Evaluation This summary of the SIU permit evaluation is based on a review of SIU permits and applicable data for the 12-month period starting January 1, 1990, and ending December 31, 1990•. The findings presented below should not be construed to indicate P01W compliance status since this study was not designed for that purpose. POTWs were legally responsible for implementation of local limits and categorical standards at the time of the study. In contrast. some P01Ws were not legally responsible for implementation of some of the monitoring and reporting conditions since the General Pretreatment Regulations were revised in 1988 and 1990 to include additional SIU monitoring and reporting requirements. A P01W is not required to implement new regulatory requirements until its NPDES permit has been modified to include those requirements and it is likely that NPDES permits for some of the study-P01Ws had not been revised 􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠to the study to require implementation of these new conditions" • 13 percent of SIU permits did not include all applicable local discharge standards. There is 90 percent confidence the value falls between 4 percent and 22 percent. 'NPDES permits are usually reissued/revised on a five-year cycle. • 34 petcent of sm permits did DOt include all applicable categoric:al dW:barge standatds. There is 90 petcent coDfidenee the vallie falls between 14 petcent aDd 53 petcent. • 'Ofthose PGIWs using self-monitoring, 64 percent of8m petmits did DOt incillde all applicable Federal self-monitoring requiretoeIIts, including some for which the P01W may not have been legally responsible. There is 90 percent confidence the vallie falls between 41 petcent aDd 87 petcent. • 56 percent of8m pllmIits did not include all applicable Federal reportilig requiremeDts, in<:luding some for which the PGIW may not have been leplIy responsible. There is 90 percent confidence the vallie falls between 39 percent aDd 74 petcent.' • 79 petcent of sm permits did not include at least one of the applicable Federal requirements above (i.e., :.:x:c.llimits. categoric:al discharge standards, aDd Federal self-monitoring requirements and reponing requirements for which the POIW may not have heen legally responsible). There'is 90 percent confidence the value falls between S6 percent 􀁾􀁤,99 percent. ' • The study reveals no apparent significant differences in the SIU SNC level based on the completeness or accuracy of the loc:al permit. The United State. OffiQe of 2nvironmental Protection Wa.tewater Enforcement Agency and ComplianQe THE NATIONAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM Background on the National' Pretreatment Proqru EPA estimates tbat there are more than 30,000 industrial racilities discbarging signiricant amounts or wastewater to PUblicly OWned Treatment Works (roTWs). The National Pretreatment Program is designed to prevent industries rrom discharging toxic pollutants capable or. harming the environment, the municipal wastewater treatment plant, or contaminating sludge generated bythese treatment plants. Under the program, the local Jllunicipalityusually has tbe primary responsibility to control the industrial wastes entering its sewer system. EPA and states are responsible ror overseeing tbese local POTW programs to ensure that tbe industrial wastewater is being appropriately controlled. The purpose of the Study, " • statistically' determine the National signiricantnoncompliance (SNC) rate·ror signiricant industrial users (SIUs) regulated by tbe National Pretreatment Program • Establish a bAseline to measure ruture .noncompliance trends or SIUs . scop. of the studyt • study conducted by Science Applications International Corp., an EPA contractor witb extensive experience in the pretre.atment Program . • Time period studied was SNC wbich occurred in calendar year 1990 .' -2 • 640 industrial files reviewed at 60 POTWs stratified probability sampling scbeme used to select POTWs POTW selection factors were (1) 􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀠of SIUs and (2) geograpbic location Equal number of, cate'gorical industries and noncategorical industries were randomly selected from tbe 60 POTWs • 1990 data were evaluated against 1991 definition p:(Significant Noncompliance to establisb a baseline for future ,trend analysis -study Results: Tbe results sbown here provide botb the statistically "most probable value" as well as the 90% confidence interval around that value. The reader should note that one can have 95% confidence that the true value is greater than the lowest (or smaller tban the highest) bound of the confidence interval. (For example, for the :first value below, one can have 95% con:fidence that at least 24% o:f SIUs were in SNC with discharge standards.), • 35% o:f SIUs would have ffeen in SNC (as currently de:fined by EPA) with discharge 􀁾􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁡􀁲􀁤􀁳􀀠(categorical standards and local limitS) . There is 90% confidence that the value falls between 24% and 46%. • 36% of SIUs would have been in SNC (as currently de:fined by EPA). with pretreatment se1E-monitoring and reporting, requirements. There is 90% con:fidence that the value falls between 20% and 52%. • 54% of SIUs would bave been in SNC (as currently de:fined by EPA) with discharge standards andlor selE-monit:oring and reporting requirements. There is 90% confidence that the value falls between 32% and 75%,. ' The report also describes results :from ancillary data accrued in the course o:f the SIU SNC evaluation. These results include the level 'o:f simple noncompliance and an evaluation 0:[ SIU permit contents. -3 stUdy Doe. Bot'Evaluate; • The current (1992) rate 􀁯􀁾􀀠SNC among SIUs • Whether SIUs voluntarily returned to compliance duringthe year •. The accuracy 􀁯􀁾􀀠past reports submitted by PO'IWs • The 􀁳􀁬􀁴􀁥􀀭􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁣􀀠reasons 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠each SIU's SNC • Individual SNC rates for PO'IWs, states or Regions H,thodology of the study: • In order to ensure accuracy, the study was conducted by7 well-trained inspectors, familiar with the National Pretreatment Program • The study followed a uniform checklist developed by EPA, and field tested on SO SIU fil.es at 9 PO'IWs prior to commencing the study • stringent guality control measures were observed by the field inspectors when collecting information, and by the statisticians during analysis of the data EPA Responses to the study; • Empbasize the use of enforcement at the EPA, state and 􀁐􀁏􀁾􀀠level to secure SIU compliance and promotedeterrence . • Assist PO'1'W implementation by sponsoring· training on identifying . SNC and responding in a timely and appropriate manner • Revise EPA's existing compliance oversight. practices to emphasize SNC in tbe future • Conduct a follow-up study to measure 􀁥􀁾􀁦􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀠of local 􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁣􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠and SIUs wbich voluntarily return to compliance • Repeat SIU SNC study in subseguent years to measure progress . -4 significant Noncompliance criteria Industrial xacilities are sUbject to enxorcement xor any violation ox the pretreatment standards and requirements. However, EPA has promulgated the xollowing criteria against which to gaugeindustrial perxormance and prioritize the use ox en:torcement resources at·the Federal, state and Local levels. These criteria are rexerred to as "signixicant noncompliance" (SNC) cr.i.tl'.lria and are set out in Federal regulations at 40 CFR 403.S (X). (2) (vii) : A. Chronic violations of wastewater discharge lim"itations (66 percent or more of all measurements taken in a 6 month periodexceed the daily maximum or the long-term average limit for the same pollutant parameter). B. Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violation (33 percent or more of all measurements taken in a 6 month period exceed 1.2 times the lim"it for toxics or 1.4 times the limit for BOO, TSS, and O&G) 􀁾􀀠C." 􀁾􀁮􀁬􀀠·other violation of an effluent limit that the Control Authority determines has caused, either alone alone or in combination with other discharges, pass through or interference. " • O. Any discharge that causes endangerment to human health, welfare, or the environment, or causes the POTW to exercise its emergency authority to halt or prevent such discharge. E. Failure to meet a compliance schedUle milestone date or enforcement order within 90 days after the scheduled 􀁤􀁾􀁴􀁥􀀠for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance. F. Reports that are more than 30 days late (e.g., Baseline Monitoring Reports, 90-day reports, periodic reports, and compliance schedule milestone reports). G. Failure to accurately report noncompliance. H. Any violation determined to adversely affect the operation or implementation of the pretreatment program: -5 -Siqnificant In4ustrial User Criteria Indust:r:ial users o:f Publicly OWned T:r:eatment Works (PO'IWS) a:r:e regulated under the National Pretreatment Program. In particula:r:,the p:r:et:r:eatment program targets some 30,000 industrial users W'hich have the greatest potential to damage treatment works o:r: cause envi:r:onmental harm. The :following criteria (set out in Fede:r:al regulations at 40 CFR 403.4(t)) are used to determine and de:fine such "Signi:ficant Industrial Users (SIUs) n: i) any cateqorical in4ustry ii) any in4ustry 4isoharqinq an averaqe of 25,000 qp4 or more iii) any in4ustry 4ischarqinq 5% or more of averaq. dryweather hy4raulic or orqanic capacity of treatment 􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀠iv) any other so 4esiqnate4 by POTW SIDs a:r:e regulated by National Pretreatment standards as set out in Fede:r:al regulations at 40 CFR 403.5 and 403.6: A. General prohibition aqainst pa.. throuqh or interference.AnA . B. Eiqht speoifio prOhibitions .AnA C. • oateqorioal stan4ar48 (-32%)an4/0r • ·POP local· limits limits (-68%) 􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁨􀁮􀁩􀁯􀁡􀁬􀀠contacts! Greq Harshall -(202) ZtlO-7745 Hark Charles . (202) 260-8319 '. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECnON AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 204Q() SEP 9 1991 OFFICE OF WATER MEMORANDUM . SUBJECT:' Application and Use of !he Regulatory Definition of 􀁓􀁩􀁾􀁣􀁡􀁮􀁴􀀠Noncompli ance for Industrial Users FROM: Michael B. Cook, 􀁄􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁯􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁊􀁲􀀮􀁻􀁦􀁁􀀮􀁬􀁬􀀠􀁾􀁫􀀮􀀮􀀠Office of Wastewater 􀁅􀀺􀀺􀁲􀁯􀁉􀁣􀁾􀁊􀁢􀁮􀁴􀀠and' 􀁃􀁯􀁾􀀱􀁩􀁡􀁮􀁥􀁥􀀠TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I-X Approved Pretreatment State Coordinators Background: On July 24, 1990, the Agency replaced the definition of "significant violation" with the definition of "significant noncompliance" (SN.C) [sec 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) and 55· Fed. Reg. 30082]. This change eliminated the inconsistencies which arose in applying the signiftcant violation criteria and established more parity in tracking violations committed by industrial users. The definition of SNC parallels the Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance (feME) definition of SNC published in 1986. , -This memorandum responds to several questions from States, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and industry regarding the application of the SNC definition. One frequently asked question is whether !he time frame for determining SNC for technical review criteria effluent violations is a static six month period (Le., a fixed six month .:;alendlu" illterval)or a r-!H"!,: 􀁾􀁩􀀮􀀧􀁴􀀠month time frame (i.e., the Cllrrent day tninus six months). POTWs and industry have also inquired whether all data must be used to calculate SNC. The following discussion is provided to promote consistency in the application of tltis· definition. Regions, States and POTWs should determine SNC in the manner prescribed below. Pretr:eatl.l:1ent POTWs are required to notify the public of significant industrial users which meet the definition of SNC through publication in the newspaper. The POTW should also use the SNC criteria as the basis for reporting an industrial user's compliance status to the Approval Authority in its Pretreatment Performance Performance Report. According to 40 CFR 403.12(i)(2), the POTW must report on the compliance status of its industrial 􀁾􀁳􀁥􀁲􀀠universe at the frequency specified by the State or EPA National Pollution Discharge, Elimination System (NPDES) permit, but in no case less than once per. year. Finally, the definition of SNC is used to detertnine whether a formal enforcement action against a user is warranted in accordance with the POTW's Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). -.' 2 Applying the Dennition: Use of the Six Month Time Frame: There are seven criteria set forth in §403.8(f)(2)(vii). Two of these criteria concern violations evaluated 􀁯􀁾􀁲􀀧􀁩􀀠six month time frame. The Agency intends for Control Authorities to evaluate" these criteria on a rolling basis. The EPA's long established practice in 'the NPDES program is to evaluate SNC for direct dischargers each quarter using data from the previous six months. Similarly, Control Authorities should determine SNC for their universe of industrial users on the same rolling quarters basis using fixed quarters established by the Control Authority to correspond to its "pretreatment year" (e.g., March 31, June 30, Septembe •• 30 and December 31). . At the end of each quarter, POlWs and States are to evaluate their industrial user's compliance status using the two criteria of the SNC definition which are evaluated on a six month time frame (Le., the "AU and "S" criteria under the regulatory definition). Under this system, each industrial user is evaluated for SNC four times during the year, and the total evaluation period covers 15 months (i.e., beginning with the last quarter of the previous pretreatment year through the end of the current year). When the POlW is required to publish, it must list in the newspaper all industrial users which have been 'd tifi d S"'r" "'. th ' (. h SNC . . d . f1 en Ie as .. __::"''''!:'!ij 􀁟􀀮􀁾􀀠preVlous year I.e., t e cntena were met unng any 0 the previous four quarters). If a facility has been determined to be in SNC based solely on violations which occurred in the first quarter of the 15 month evaluation period (i.e., the last quarter of the previous pretreatment year) and the facility has demonstrated consistent compliance in the subsequent four quarters. then the POlW is not required to republish the Industrial User (IU) in the newspaper if the IU was published in the previous year for the same violations. Use of Industrial User and POTW Data in Determining SNC: Several POlWs have inquired whether whether all data, including Control Authority sampling and industrial user self-monitoring. must be used in determining SNC. This question arises from the concern that an industrial user may choose to conduct its sampling efforts at times in which it knows that it is in compliance (e.g., during early morning stanup or during periods in which the industrial process is down), The concern is that use of these unrepresentative data will allow the induslIy to craft its compliance status such that it will never h!' in SNC. . The regulation deflIling 􀁓􀁎􀁾􀀠clearly requires that all measurements taken in the appropriate six month period must, be used to determine a faci&ty's SNC status. Therefore, any and all samples obtained through appropriate sampling techniques which have been analyzed in accordance with the procedures established in 40 CFR Part 136 must be used to determine whether the facility is in SNC. The General Pretreatment Regulations further state that periodic compliance reports must be based on data obtained through appropriate sampling and analysis, and the data must be representative of conditions occuning during the reporting 􀁾􀁯􀁤􀀠[403.8(f}(1)(iv) 3 and 403.12(g)(3)]. The Control Authority must require that frequency and scope of industrial user self-monitoring necessary to assess and assme compliance by industrial users with applicable pretreatment. standards and requirements. The natme and' scope of the sampling undertaken by an industrial user is under the control of the Control Authority through the issuance of an industrial user pertnit. These permits should specify the sampling locations and sample collection method necessary to ensme that representative samples are obtained for all regulated waste streams. By requiring industrial users to obtain representative samples. the Control Authority will ensure that industrial users do not evade noncompliance through selective sampling of their industrial processes. Conclusion; The Control Authority is required to screen all compliance data, whether generated through industrial user self-monitoring or by the Control Authority. to identify any violations of pretreatment requirements. Whenever there is a a violation, the Control Authority must take appropriate enforcement action, as defined in its ERP. After this initial enforcement response, the Control Authority should closely track: the industrial user's progress toward compliance by increasing the frequency of user self-monitoring. increasing the P01W's monitoring, or both. When follow-up activity indicates that the violations persist or that satisfactory progress toward compliance is not being made, the Control Authority is required to escalate its enforcement response in accordance with the procedures established in its ERP. At a minimum EPA expects POTWs to address SNC with an enforceable order that requires a return to compliance by a specific deadline. When this enforceable order involves a compliance schedule, the industrial user remains in SNC during the period of the schedule (unless the facility returns to compliance prior to the end of the schedule). For example, if the duration of the schedule is two years, the. facility should be published in both years. Of course, the P01W should explaln in its publication that the violations have been addressed with a formal enforcement action (similar to a "resolved pending" listing on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report). The definition. of SNC provides a benchmark: against which the compliance status of an industrial user and the enforcement activities of P01Ws can be measmed. The concept of significant noncompliance plays a pivotal role in the implementation and enforcement of the National Pretreiument Program. In order for the definition to succeed, it is critical that each Control Authority apply it on a consistent basis. If you have any further questions on this issue, please feel free to call me at (202) 260-SSS0. The staff person familiar with these issues is Lee Okster at (202) 260-S329. . ' cc: CynthIa Dougherty Regional Water Compliance Branch Chiefs Regional Pretreatment Coordinators Lead Regional Pretreatment Attorneys UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ..L6.N I 7 Igsa QFFlCiQF WATER MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Determining Indusaial User Significant Noncompliance -One Page Summary FROM: Mark D. Charles. Chief ""lIlt.;' D. cQ(rih..RCRA and Pretreatment 􀁅􀁾􀁲􀁯􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠Section TO: Regional Pretreatment Coordinators. Regions I-X During a recent Pretreatment Coordinator's, conference call with Headquarters pretreatment staff. a suggestion was made to prepare a one page visual summary of how to determine Significant Noncompliance (SNC) for Indusaial Users (lUs). This request was made in response to the Agency's policy memorandum explaining the correct procedure for applying the SNC definition to IUs. As a result of th,at request, we have prepared such a visual summary and are now maldng it available for disaibution to your Approved States and POTWs. The summary presents a chronological example of the steps which a Control Authority should follow when evaluating the compliance SlatuS of an indusaial user vis-a-vis the SNC definition. The example assumes a "Pretreatment Year" (or "Year") equal to the calendar year and brackets the "Year" with heavy black lines to separate it from the previous and subsequent "Years." The example illustrates the rolling quarters concept by presenting the six month evaluation periods for SNC determination as coupled quarters. For the purpose of the attached example. the end of each relevant quarter (i.e.• the date on which the SNC determination should be made) is March 3 􀀨􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀠I)V Thanks, VI>0/\' 'b\ Sharon •'-J {J i[J \ 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (912) 450-2811 16801 Weetgrove 7 March 2002 Mr. Jerry Salgado Plans Review and Design Team Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) 12100 Park 35 Circle Building F, Room 3101 Austin, TX 78753 RE: Town ofAddison, Texas, Water Distribution System Request for TNRCC Elevated Storage Waiver Dear Mr. Salgado: This is to transmit one copy ofour "Water Distribution System Elevated Storage Tank Waiver Request" dated March 2001. The Waiver Request is in report form and has been prepared by Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, our Consulting Engineer. The Report shows that we have sufficient ground water storage and pumping capacity to satisfY our water supply needs without the need for additional elevated storage. Your consideration ofthis waiver request will be most appreciated. Very truly yours, 􀁾􀁉􀀮􀁾􀀠Michael E. Murphy, P.E. Director ofPublic Works MM:sef cc: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director Keith Thompson, Utilities Foreman Attachment: (As noted above) I ,.. j 􀁾􀁾􀀠z__.ADDisoN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (972) 450-2871 􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀠.. ",._---􀁾® Post Office Box 9010 Addison. Texas 75001-9010 1680) estgrove May 2, 2001 Mr. Andrew J. Johnson, P.E. Plans Review and Rate Design Team Texas Natural Resources Conservation Conunission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Re: Town ofAddison, Texas, Water Distribution System Request for TNRCC Elevated Storage Waiver Dear Mr. Johnson: This is to transmit one copy ofour "Water Distribution System Elevated Storage Tank Waiver Request" dated March, 2001. The waiver request is in report form and has been prepared by Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, our consulting engineer. The report shows that we have sufficient ground water storage and pumping capacity to satisfY our water supply needs without the need for additional elevated storage. Your consideration ofthis waiver request will be most appreciated. Very truly yours; 􀀤􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀠Michael E. Murphy, P.E. TN RG C Director ofPublic Works 'J-e.rry ber/sa.cio Cc: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Plall l'efll-e/p 􀁾􀀢􀀬􀁲􀁊􀀮􀀠fJeS/'jfl /6:111} Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant Public Works Dire 1').100 !kIt< 35 err-ele BIO.FRD1 Keith Thompson, Utilities Foreman f), v1/. 3/()/I'fl/::I17PI I ( <.j, Attachment 7gl53' Robert J. Huston, Chainnan R. B. flRalph11 Marquez, Commissioner Kathleen Hartnett White, Commissioner Jeffrey A. Saitas, Executive Director TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas bl! Reducing and Preventing Pollution January 29, 2002 ADDISON TOWN OF PO BOX 9010 ADDISON, TX 75001 Subject: Public Drinking Water Supply ADDISON TOWN OF -PWS ID #0570031 . 'DALLAS County. Texas Dear Public Water Supply Official: Information received In this office as a result of a recent Inspection conducted by your local Regional office of the TNRCC indicates that the population served by the water supply has changed such that we must adjust the number of coliform monitoring samples required each month. Before this most recent inspection the population figure in our records was 25689. The recent information we received indicates a new population served of 14166. This population change requires that the number of sampies collected each month be adjusted from 25 to a new required number of 15. Since this number of sllmplel1..requlred is less than the number of samples required previously we have already made. this change in our database. . .' -. . The 􀁾􀁥􀁷􀀠􀁮􀁵􀁾􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀧􀁯􀁦􀀠􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁰􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠required is the minimum number required to be submitted. You may submit as many routine monthly sample as you wish. If you believe that more samples are necessary to adequately monitor your public water system then submit the number you believe necessary, but it must be at least the minimum number the TNRCC requires. As indicated, the number of samples required to be submitted is based on' the population served by the public water system. The population data is collected from the public water system at the time of the inspection. For community pUblic water supplies other than cities the population figure is arrived at by multiplying the numlier of connections by three. This office is reviewing census data from the Census Bureau website to obtain population figures. If you have questions regarding the population served or this change in the number of samples required. you may contact me at (512) 239-6058. Sincerely, 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠Larry E. Mitchell .'. . Water Quality Monitoring Team Public Drinking Water Section Water 13uPllly Division.. > ..... " 'LEM:ad. cc: TNRCCReglon 4 ....-. P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3081 • 5121239-1000 • Internet address: www.tnrcc.state.tx.uS printtd on rrq"Cled p;.!pU uling $oy-lrueJ il'lk 290-48 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (3197) RULES supervise. Each operating company shall provide this information for itself and for each of its 0perators. See Section 290.47 of this title (relating to Appendices). __ 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀭-,_ (8) { Special Precautions. In the event of low distributiOIipressiiril$-(belnw-20 psi), water outages, repeated UIlllCCeptabJe microbiological samples or failure to maintain adequate chlorine residwlls, special preeautions must be instiIuted by the water system owner or responsible official A flowchart has been provided to guide water system owners and operators in taking appropriate action in the above situations. This flowchart can be found in Section 290.47(11) of this title (relating to Appendices)_ lf the flowchart indicates that a boil water notification is required, the system must notil¥ its customers within 24 hours using the prescribed notification format as specified in Section 290.47 (e) ofthis title (relating to Appendices). A copy of this this notice shall be provided to the executive director. Bilingual notification may be appropriate based upon local demograpbics. Boil water notices shall remain in effect until water distribution pressures in excess of 20 psi can consistently be maintained, a minimum of 0.2 mgll free chlorine residual or 0.5 mgll chloramine residual (measured as total chlorine) is present throughout the system and water samples collected for microbiological analysis are found negative fur coliform organisms. Once the above oouditions are met, the customers must be notified in a manner similar to the original notiee. Other protective tneIlSUI'eS may be required at the discretion ofthe executive direetor. (t) Water leakage. All water storage facilities, distribution system lines and related appurtenances shall be maintained in a watertight condition. (u) Minimum pressures. All public water systems shall be operated to provide a minimum pressure of 35 psi throughout the distribution system under normal operating conditions. The system shall also be operated to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi during emergencies such as fire fighting. (v) Testing equipment. Testiog equipment or some other means ofmonitoring the effectiveness of any chemical treatment processes used by the system must be provided. (w) System ownership. All conunuuity water systems shall post a legible sign at each of its production, treatment, and storage facilities. The sign shall be loeated in plain view of the public and shall provide the name of the water supply and ao emergency teIepbooe number where a responsible official can be contacted. (x) Abandoned wells. Abandoned public water supply wells owned by the system must be plugged with cement according to the water well drillers rules Chapter 338 of this title. Wells that are not in use and are non-deteriorated (as defioed in 30 TAC Chapter 338) must be tested every five years or as required by the executive director to prove that they are in a non-deteriorated condition. The test results shall be sent to the Commission's water utilities divisino for review and approval Deteriorated wells must be either plugged with cement or repaired to a noo-deteriorated oonditiolL (y) Eled.rlca1 wiring,All water system electrical wiring must be installed in a securely mounted conduit in compliaoce with a local or national electrical code. Amended Effective Date: March 3, 1997 Section 290.47. Appendiees. (a) Requirements. Public water supply systems which achieve and maintain recoguition must exceed the minimum aceeptable standards of the Commission in these sections. (1) To attain recoguitioo as a "superior public water systern," the following additioual requirements must be met: (A) Physical facilities shall comply with the requirements in these sections. (B) Tbere sballbe a minimum oftwo certified operators with additional operators required for larger systems. (C) The system's micr0biological record for the previous 24 months period shall indicate no violations (frequency, number or MCL) of􀁴􀁬􀀧􀁬􀁾􀀠drinking water standards. (0) The quality of the water shall comply with all primary water quality parameters listed in the drinking water standards. . (E) The chemical quality of the water shall comply with all secondary constituent levels listed in the drinking water standards. (F) The system's operation shall comply with applicable state statutes and minimum aceeptable operating practices set forth in Section 290.46 of this title (relating to Minimum Aceeptable Operating Practices for Public Drinking Water Supplies). . © RPC, Inc. 1997 RULES TEXAS NATIJRAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (3/97) 290-6Oa Appendix H. Special Preeautions F1owdwrt. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER RESPONSE TO LOSS OF PRESSURE TO ALL OR PARTS OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM DIMdId Ie ' *' •WI'ftt 􀁁􀁗􀁗􀁁􀁾􀀠Yea ItnnMldlatilly eon.ct 􀁾􀀱􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁡􀁤IItIIftIPIMI frMI'I thai 􀁾pcN'I:Iof'II"""cIJst:rtbIZIIM 􀁾--Ilftd 􀁮􀁉􀁕􀁲􀁦􀁴􀁟􀁾􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁕􀁯􀁡􀁴􀁄􀀠STO P No further .. actionce_ v •• 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁷􀁨􀁕􀀺􀁴􀁨􀀮􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀪􀀩􀀡􀁤􀀱􀁮􀀱􀀱􀁳􀀠d.pnnurtucf ItopMfrlnn IlMi rwpakDr 􀁾􀁮􀁷􀁡􀁴􀀮􀀠Amended Effective Date: March 3, 1997 \ ©RPC,Inc.1997 AUG-09-2001 THU 04:37 PM TNRCC Region 4 Arlington FAX NO. 8177QS2946 TNRCC FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 2001 NUMBER OF PAGES: 1 (Tncluding Ihis cover sheet) FROM: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Pixie Wetmore TNRCClRegion 4 -Arlington Phone: 817-588-5849 (will remain Ihe same) Fax: 817-588-$701 (new fax as of 8-20-01) Note: Effective August 20, 2001, Ihe TNRCC Arlington Region Offiee will move to a new location and assume a new name. Our office will now be called the DFW Region Office IUld be relocated 10 Ft. Worth. Listed below arc the new address. phone and fax numbers. All jndividual investigator phone numbers will remain unchanged. Please update your records to reflect these changes. Address TNRCC DFW Region Office 2301 Gravel Drive Fort Worth. TX 76118-6951 Phone Number Main office 817-588-5800 Fax Numbers Main Fax 817-588-5700 Water Fax 817-588-5701 Air 817-588-$702 WasteIPST 817-588-5703 Administration 817·588-5704 File Review 817-588-5720 Call if you have any questions. Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 􀀨􀁾7JJ£cu TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PRELIMINARY DECISION FOR WATER QUALITY TPDES PERMIT RENEWAL FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMIT NO. 03950 APPLICATION AND PRELIMINARY DECISION. Bruce Hardwood Flooring LLC, 16803 Dallas Parkway, Addison, Texas 75001, which operates a laminated hardwood processing facility, has applied to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) for a renewal ofTPDESPermitNo. 03950, which authorizes the discharge oflog storage water (boiler blowdown, stann water and raw water) on an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfalls 00 I and 002. This application was submitted to the TNRCC on October 4, 2000. The facility is located at 1100 Cotton Ford Road in the City of Center, Shelby County, Texas. The effluent is discharged to an unnamed creek; thence to Prairie Creek; thence to Tenaha Creek; thence to Toledo Bend Reservoir, in Segment No. 0504 ofthe Sabine River Basin. The unclassified receiving waters have limited aquatic life use for the unnamed creek. The designated uses for Segment No. 0504 are high aquatic life use, contact recreation and public water supply. The TNRCC executive director has completed the technical review of the application and prepared a draft permit. The draft permit, ifapproved, would establish the conditions under which the facility must operate. The executive director has made a preliminary decision to issue the draft permit. The permit application, statement of basis/technical summary and executive director's preliminary deCision, and draft permit are available for viewing and copying at the Shelby County Courthouse, 200 San Augustine Street, Center, Texas 75935. PUBLIC COMMENT /PUBLIC MEETING. You may submit public comments or request a public meeting about this application. The purpose of a public meeting is to provide the opportunity to submit written or oral comment or to ask questions about the application. The TNRCC will hold a public meeting if the executive director determines that there is a significant degree ofpublic interest in the application or if requested by a local legislator. A public meeting is not a contested case hearing. Written public comments and requests for a public meeting should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 within 30 days oUhe date of newspaper publication of this notice. \ \ ).... '.., OPPORTUNITY FORA CONTESTED CASE HEARING. After the deadline for public commentS, the executive director will consider the comments and prepare a response to all relevant and material, or significant public comments. The response to comments, along with the executive director's decision . on the application, will be mailed to everyone who submitted public comments or who requested to be on a mailing list for tbis application. If comments are received, the mailing will also provide instructions for requesting a contested case hearing or reconsideration of the executive director's decision. A contested case hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial in a state district court. A contested case hearing will only be granted based on disputed issues offact that are relevant and material to the Commission's decision on the application. Further, the Commission will only grant a hearing on issues that were raised during the public comment period and not withdrawn. Issues that are not raised raised in public eomments may not be considered during a hearing. The TNRCC may aet on this application to renew a permit without providing an opportunity for·a contested case hearing ifcertain criteria are met. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ACTION. The executive director may issue final approval of the application unless a timely contested case hearing request or a timely request for reconsideration is filed. If a timely hearing request or request for reconsideration is filed, the executive director will not issue final approval of the permit and will forward the application aL)d requests to the TNRCC Commissioners for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting. MAILING LISTS. In addition to submitting public comments, you may ask to be placed on a mailing list to receive future public notices mailed by the Office of the Chief Clerk. You may request to be added to: (I) the mailing list for this specific application; (2) the permanent mailing list for a specific applicant name and permit number; and/or (3) the permanent mailing list for a specific county. Clearly specifY which mailing list(s) to which you wish to be added and send your request to the TNRCC Offiee ofthe Chief Clerk at the address below. Unless you otherwise specifY, you will be included only on the mailing list for this specific application. INFORMATION. Ifyou need more information about this permit application or the permitting process (such as being added to the mailing list),please call theTNRCC Office ofPublic Assistance, Toll Free, at 1-800-687-4040 or write to them at MC 105, P. O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087. General information about the TNRCC can be found at our web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us . .. " 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀠-....􀁾􀀬....". Further information may also be obtained from Bruce Hardwood Flooring LLC at the address stated above or by Calling Mr. Nick Graves at 214/887 -2341. Issued: t /J ( 2 /l JUL 30 2001 􀁣􀀻􀁊􀁃􀁻􀀮􀀡􀁩􀁢􀀻􀁦􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁤􀀮􀀠􀁃� �􀀮􀀭􀀻􀂧􀁤􀀭􀁾􀀠Castaiiuela, iefClerk alural Resource Conservation Commission Q dallas waterunlltles city of dallas June 14, 2001 To: All Wholesale Customer Cities Enclosed you will find a copy of the Guide to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. This general information publication describes the organization and main functions of the TNRCC. We thought this publication might be of some use to all our wholesale customers. Sincerely, Randy Stalnaker Manager Wholesale Services Division Our Vision: To be an efficient provider of superior water and wastewater service and 0 leader in the water industry. Wholesale Services' 1500 Morillo, Room 4AN Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 670·5888 • Fax: 1214) 670-3154 · -' ... ' 􀀮􀁾􀀠''','/J )i , ..􀁾... GUIDl TO THl TlXAS NATURAl RlSOUR(l (ONSlRYATION (OMMISSION G(·OOL Revised April 2001 GUIDE TO THE TEXAS NATURAl RESOURCE 􀁇􀁉􀀭􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀠PDF versionCONSERVATION COMMISSION (Revised April 2001) The following guide describes the organization and main functiol1$ ofthe TNRCC, one ofthe most comprehensive stale environmental agencies in the nation. The TNRCC has approximately 3,000 employees, 16 regional OffiC1!$, and a$410.9 million annual appropriated budget far the 2000 fiscal year. Most oftire budget is funded by regulatory program fees ($323.8 million, or 78.8 percent). Federal funds provide $53.4 million, or 13 percent; state general revenue provides $27.5 million, ar6]percent; and other SOllYC1!$ provide the remaining $6.2 milIUm ar 1.5 percent. Iable of (ontents· Mission Statement .................................."............ .........." 1 Agency Philosophy ............................,............................;.. 1 Organi:zational Chart .........,.......""..,........,.......,.............. 2 Office of the Commissioners .."................,..................... ::I General Counsel ............................"...........................,....... 3 Alternative Dispute Resolution ..................... ..................... 3 Chier Clerk ........................................................................... 3 lntemalAudit ...................................................................... 3 Public Assistance "'.............................................................. 3 Public Interest Counsel ....................................................... 3 Office of the hecu6ve Director ................................... 3 Agl! Sherman Hansford Swisher Hartley VOnMcCulloch Region 12 .. Houston 7131767·3500 Austin Harris Brazoria Ubmes Bandera Kendall Kerr Comal Medina Edw;){ds Real """" F:1o U","" Gilfesplc Wilson GU.1l:mlupe Region 4 • Arlington 817/588·5800 Coliio Joonson Cooke Koutmilfl Dallas Navarro Denton RUe Pinto Ellis Parker Erath RoekwaU Fannin SomeMlI Grayson Tarrant Hood Wise' Hunt IJ Region 10 .. Beaumont 409/898·3838 Angelina fu'" Hardin Sabine Houston San Augustine Jasper San Jacinto Jefferson Shelby Nacogdoches Trinity NewtDn Tyler Orange Region 15 -llarlingen 9561425·6UlO ,,"'"" K.O Region 14· Corpus Christi 3611825-3100 Ar.",,,,,"C Calhoon De 'W5u Goliad Gonutles Jackson Jim Wells Kent IG;;Hrrez, F..S' Division Director, Water Utilities Division Barry It McBee. Chairman R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner John M. Baker. Commissioner Dan Pearson. Executive Director TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pol/ution April 30, 1996 John H. Lindner, P.E. Carter Burgess 7950 Elbrook, Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75247-4951 Re: Town of Addison, Texas MidwaylBeltline Sanitary Sewer Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Pennit No. WWPR Log No. 046f106 Dallas County Dear Mr. Lindner: We have received the design submittal included with your cover letter dated 4fI9/l9%. The rules which regulate the design, installation and testing of domestic wastewater projects are found in 30 TAC, Chapter 317, of the TNRCC's rules titled, Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems. Section 3l7.1(a)(4)(D), relating to case-by-case reviews, states in part that upon submittal of plans, specifications, and engineering reports (including commission-approved application forms) to the commission, the executive director may approve of of the submitted materials without a technical review of the submitted materials. Under the authority of §317.1(a)(4)(D) a technical review of the submitted materials was not performed. However, the project proposed in the submittal Is approved for construction. Below are provisions of the Chapter 317 regulations, which must be met as a condition of approval. These items are provided as a reminder. If you have already met these requirements, please disregard this additional notice. I. You must keep certain materials on file for the life of the project and provide them to TNRCC upon request. These materials include an engineering report, test results, a cover letter. and the final version of the project plans and specifications. These materials shall be prepared and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Texas and must show substantial compliance with Chapter 317. All plans and specifications must conform to any waste discharge requirements authorized in a pennit by the TNRCC. Certain specific items which shall be addressed in the engineering report are discussed in §317.l(c). Additionally, the engineering report must include all constants, graphs, equations, and calculations needed to show substantial compliance with Chapter 317. The items which shall be included in the cover letter are addressed in §317.1(a)(3). 2. Any deviations from Chapter 317 shall be disclosed in the cover letter and the technical justifications for those deviations shall be provided in the engineering report. Any deviations from Chapter 317 shall be based on the best professional judgement of the registered professional engineer sealing the P.O. Box 13087 Austin. Texas 78711·3087 512/239-1000 prir.ted on n;::ycltJ p.ipt1 UllnQ 􀀬􀁜􀀮􀁏􀁹􀀮􀁾􀀠:nk John H. Lindner, P.E. Page 2 April 30, 1996 materials and the engineer's judgement that the design would not result in a threat to public health or the environment. 3. Any variance from a Chapter 317 requirement disclosed in your cover letter is approved. If in the future, additional variances from the Chapter 317 requirements are desired for the project, each variance must be requested in writing by the design engineer. Then, the TNRCC will consider granting a written approval to the variance from the rules for the specific project and the specific circumstances. 4. Within 60 days of the completion of construction, an appointed engineer shall notify both the Wastewater Pennits Section of the TNRCC and the appropriate Region Office of the date of completion. The engineer shall also provide written certification that all construction, materials, and equipment were substantially in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the rules of the TNRCC, and any change orders filed with the TNRCC. All notifications, certifications, and change orders must include the signed and dated seal of a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Texas. This approval does not mean that future submittals will be approved without a technical review. The TNRCC will provide a notification of intent to review whenever a submittal is to undergo a review. Please be reminded of §317.1(a)(2) of the rules which states, "Approval given by the executive director ... shall not relieve the sewerage system owner or the design engineer of any liabilities or responsibilities with respect to the proper design, construction, or authorized operation of the project in accordance with applicable commission rules." If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please call me at (512) 239-4552. Sincerely, Louis C. Herrin, m, P.E. Wastewater Pennits Section cc: Town of Addison, Texas TNRCC, Region 4 Office John Hall. Chairman Pam Reed. Commissioner Peggy 􀁃􀁡􀁭􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠Commissioner Anthony Grigsby, E>:eculive Dincro, TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Prolecllng TutlS by Reducing and Preventing Pollulion September 7, 1994 Mr. John H. Lindner, P.E. Carter & Burgess, Inc. 7950 Elmbrook, suite 250 Dallas, TX 75247 Re: Town of Addison Marsh lane Sewer Interceptor Proposed wastewater collection System Improvements WWPR Log No. 074/077 TNRCC Permit No. 10303-001 Permittee: Trinity River AuthorityDallas County, Texas Dear Mr. Lindner: We have received the design submittal included with your cover letter dated July 26, 1994. This project provides for the construction of the Marsh lane sewer interceptor. The rules which regulate the design, installation and testing of the proposed project are found in 30 TAC, section 317.1 and section 317.2 of Chapter 317 of the TNRCC's rules titled, Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems. A review to determine whether or not the proposed project complies with the applicable rules in Chapter 317 has not been performed. However, the proposed project is approved with the following comments and conditions: 1. An engineering report must be done by the project engineer. This engineering report must include all constants, graphs, equations,and calculations, which are needed to both justify the design and show full compliance with section 317.1(c) of the TNRCC's rules requiring a final engineering report. Copies of this report shall be made available to the TNRCC, upon request, for a period of two years after the date of the project's completion. 2. The final version of the project plans and specifications shall include any and all information necessary to show full compliance with the applicable requirements detailed in section 317.1 and section 317.2 of the TNRCC's rules. Copies of the final version P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711·3087 512/239-1000 Mr. John H. Lindner Scp....ber 7, 1994 "".2 of the project plans and specifications shall be made available to the TNRCC, upon request, for a period of two years after the date of the project's completion. 3. Any test results necessary to show compliance with the testing requirements of Section 317.2 shall be made available to the TNRCC, upon request, for a period of five years after the date of the project's completion. 4. Although a full review of this proposed project was not performed, please note.that the TNRCC still maintains review authority and that this review authority can be utilized at any time in the future, without notification or justification, on a case by case basis. Also, please be aware of section 317.1(a) (2) (A) of the rules which states, "Approval given by the commission is not intended to relieve the sewerage system owner or the designengineer of any liabilities or responsibilities with respect to the design, construction, or operation of the project." 5. Within 60 days of the completion of construction, ·an appointed engineer must notify both the Permitting section of .the TNRCC's watershed Management Division and the appropriate Region. Office of the date of completion. The engineer must also provide written certification that all construction, materials and equipment, and test results were substantially in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and any change orders filed with the TNRCC. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further service, please call James J. Cheng at (512) 239-4558. Sincerely, 􀁾􀁴􀁶􀀺􀁷􀁫􀀴􀁻􀀠Louis C. Herrin III, P.E• • permitting 􀁓􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀢􀁾􀁳􀁨􀁥􀁤􀀠Management Division xc: Town of Addison Trinity River Authority TNRCCRegion Office 4 (Submitted Materials Attached) John Hall. Chairman Pam Reed. Commissioner Peggy Gamer. Commissioner Anthony Grigsby, Executive Director RECEIVED JJ. 221994 CITY MANAGER TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecllng Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution July 21, 1994 Richard Beckert, Mayor Town of Addison PO Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 Subject: Public Drinking Water Supply )< Town of Addison (lOft 0570031) Dallas County, Texas Dear Mayor Beckert: On June 29, 1994, our representative, Mr. Paul Littleton, Field Investigator, in company with Keith Thompson, utilities Superintendent, conducted a sanitary survey of the subject water system. As a result of this survey, your attention Is directed to the following items of noncompliance with State statutes. References after each listed violation are to Title 30, Chapter 290 of the Texas Administrative Code (8290.). 1. The access hole for the water level indicator cable must be reduced so that it is no more than 1/16" larger than the cable si;;:e. (S290.43(c)(6» 2. The ground storage tank at the Surveyor Pump Station must be protected by an intruder-resistant fence. The fence must be at least six feet high and constructed of wood, concrete, masonry, or metal with three strands of barbed wire extending outward from the top of the fence at a 45 degree angle. In lieu of the barbed wire, the fence must be eight feet in height. The fence must be in good repair and close enough to surface grade to prevent intruder passage. The fence must have lockable gates which must be kept locked whenever the facility is unattended. (S290.38) 3. All community water systems shall post a legible sign at each of its production, treatment, and storage facilities. The sign must be located in plain 􀁶􀁩􀁾􀁷􀀠of the public and must provide the name of the water supply and an emergency telephone number where a responsible' official can be contacted. (S290.46(w» Rl1l'LyTo: RECION 4 • 1019 N. DuNCANVILLE RD.• DUNCANVILLE, TIlXAS 75116-2201 • AREA CoDE 214/298-6171 P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, T..... 78711·3087 • 512/512/9()8.1000 Richard Beckert, Mayor Town of Addison (IDD 0570031) Dallas County, Texas Page 2 4. The "Superior" rating replaces the former "Approved" status which the city has held for many years. A copy of the new sign design is enclosed for your information This sign should replace the old "State Approved" signs which you now have. On September 1, 1993, the Texas water Commission and the Texas Air Control Board merged to form the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). Please address all future correspondence to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission at the above address. 􀁾􀀠In conclusion, we wish to express our thanks and appreciation for the courtesies extended during the survey. Should clarification of this letter be desired or if we may be of other assistance, please contact our Paul Littleton at our Regional office in Duncanville at 214/283-3703 or the Monitoring and Enforcement Staff in Austin at 512/908-6020. Sincerely, 􀁾􀀼􀁲􀁾􀀮􀀠/2.. Sid 􀁓􀁬􀁯􀀭􀀻􀁵􀁾/' Manager, Water Program SS:SS:PHL:phl cc: Dallas County Health Department Dallas County Judge TNRCC -Austin i r-I--R ; 1 ,i2" 1 ,''''-',-;-'_______ 36", ---------.,-----------::-"1"& 􀁾􀀠􀀷􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀯􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠L ! 3"I : '7 I4" 0SUPERIOR ,( -.\ <..:.. 21'2 .,24" '7 ! 3" 0 7--PUBLIC-:-W.ATER , 2" " <..:.SiS " I 3" 0 VSYSTEM 1" --{> I Utilities Foreman 􀁾􀀠Re: T.N.R.C.C. Inspection On June 29, 1994 Paul Littleton with T.N.R.C.C. performed an inspection on the Addison distribution system and pumping facilities. The result are: 1. Recommendation to change the Town of Addison water supply designation from "Public Water Supply" to "Superior Water Supply". 2. Addison has used its service accouots as a representation of its total service connections. However, T.N.R.C.C. includes apartment units as service coonections,(each unit is a connection}. This now means Addison has approximately 2,423 service acccouots and 5,322 service coonections. The impact of this is: a)T.N.R.C.C. fees for distribution system will increase hased on this reviSed number of service connections. b} T.N.R.C.C. recommended R.O.F. minimum setting could change based on this revised revised number of service connections. Mr. Littleton reviewed Addison's reports and records that are required by T.N.R.C.C. He was satisfied and gave no forther recommendations for improvements. After receiving approval we then inspected the elevated tower, Celestial and Surveyor pump stations the results of this inspection are: 1. The elevated tower needs a sign stating "Town of Addison,450-7156" posted on the entry gate. 2. Surveyor pump station needs a sign stating "Town of Addison,450-7156" posted on the entry gate. The existing 6' fence must be barb-wired across the top or extended upward 2 feet. The ground storage transmitter chain holes need to be screened to redoce open area doe to rusting. The grouod storage overflow screen must be removed. 3. Celestial pump station needs a sign stating "Town of Addison,450-7156" posted on the entry gate. The existing 6' fence must be barb-wired across the top or extended upward 2 feet. The grouod storage overflow screens must be removed. The above recommendations have not been budgeted for which will cause an significant impact on trying to get funding. After the fucility inspection, we drove to five locations throughout Addison's distributiou system and performed pressure checks and chlorine residual tests_ The pressure check and chlorine residual was well over the minimum range (pressure -43 lbs to 65 lbs, chlorine -1.9 to 2.2) -',., \ ..􀀧􀀮􀁾"':!:'"," . TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1ITLE 30 TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 317.2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SEWERAGE SYSTEMS '" : . ; /. ;'",, " ..... '.'.',' 􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀠,.:.,: ; '-, , " " , Provided By: Texas Concrete Pipe Association ASCE -Texas Section Spring Meeting Corpus cliristi, Texas ' April 21-22. 1994 'T8xas Natural Resource'conversatiOn"Commission Paqe 26 Design criteria for Seweraqe systems Sewaqe 􀁃􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁓􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁥􀁭􀀠1317.2 Sewaqe Collection System. Ca) General Requirements. Cl) Design. Sewer lines shall be designed for the estimated future population to be served, plus adequate 􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁥􀀠for institutional and commercial flows. The collection system desiqn shall provide a minimum structural life cycle of 50 years. The collection system desiqn shall provide for the mtnimization of anaerobic conditions. Desiqn procedures for the minimization of anaerobic conditions outlined in the u.s. Environmental Protection Aqency (EPA) Desiqn Manual for Odor and Corrosion control in 'sanitary Seweraqe Systems and Treatment Plants (EPA/625/1-85/018), ASCE Manual of Enqineerinq Practice Number 59 (MEP-59) or other appropriate references, should be followed. The owner of the collection system shall provide inspection under the direction of a Texas reqistered professional enqineer durinq construction and testinq phases of the project. The enqineer responsible for the desiqn shall also certify to the Executive Director that the project was constructed as approved. All collection systems to be located over the recharqe zone of the Edwards Aquifer shall be desiqned and installed in accordance with 30 Texas Natural aeSOUl i ,conversation commission Paqe 27, 'Design Criteria for sewerage,Systems TAC Chapter 313 (Edwards Aquifer aules) in addition to these rules. (2) Pipe Sele,ction. The choice of sewer pipe shall be based on the chemical characteristics of the water delivered by public and private water suppliers, the character of industrial wastes, the possibilities of septicity, the exclusion of inflow and infiltration, the external forces, internal pressures, abrasion, and corrosion resistance. For all installations, if a pipe as a whole or an integral structural component of the pipe will deteriorate when subjected to corrosive internal conditions, a corrosive resistant coating or liner acceptable to ,the Commission shall be installed at the pipe manufacturing facility unless the final enqineering design report, including calculations and data, submitted by the engineer demonstrates that the design and operational characteristics of the system will maintain the structural integrity of the system during the minimum life cycle. The sewer pipe to be used shall be identified in the plans and technical specifications with its appropriate AS'I'M, ANSI or AWWA standard numbers for both quality control (dimensions, tolerances, etc.) and installation (bedding, backfill, etc.). (A) Flexible pipe. The engineer shall submit an engineering report that includes the method of defining the modulus of soil reaction, (E'), for 'Texas Natural Resource:Conversation COmmission' Page 28 Design criteria for Sewerage systems the bedding material, (E'b)' and the natural soil (E'n)' or other specific information to quantify the effect of the in-situ material on the effective modulus, (E'.). The report shall also include design calculations for E'. , prism load, live loads, long term deflection, strain, bending strain, buckling and wall crushing. The design calculations shall include all information pertinent to the determination of an adequate design including, but not limited to: pipe diameter and material with reference to appropriate standards, modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, pipe stiffness or ring stiffness constant converted to pipe stiffness as described below, IAlonhardt's zeta factor or E'. from another acceptable method, the conversion factor used to obtain vertical deflection when using the Modified Iowa Equation, trench width, depth of cover, water table elevation, etc. : Pipe stiffness shall be related to Ring Stiffness Constant (RSC), when necessary, by the following equation: PS-CxRSCx 8.337 D PS -Pipe stiffness, psi' .. Conversion Factor, (0.80):C 􀁾􀁥􀁸􀁡􀁳􀀠Natural 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁣􀁾􀀠bonversation Commission Page 29 Desiqn criteria for Sewerage Systems RaC-Ring stiffness Constant; and, Mean Pipe Diameter, in.D In all cases the design procedure, such as outlined above, shall dictate the .inimum pipe , stiffness whether less than or greater than 46 psi, however, direct bury installations:, of flexible pipe .aterial 13lay consider a mini13lU13l stiffness requirement to ensure ease of handling, transportation and construction. Special consideration shall be given to the pipe stiffness at the expected installation temperature. 􀁾􀁥􀀠resistance of each .aterial to the failure modes of strain, buckling and wall crushing shall be justified to the satisfaction of the Executive Director by the engineer. In all situations, the design methodology shall be consistent with cu.rrently accepted design practices and acceptable to the Executive Director. In the design of sanitary sewer systems using trenchless technology, other design methodology 13lay be considered appropriate depending upon the type of pipe selected and other specific conditions. (8) Rigid Pipe. The engineer shall submit an engineering report that includes the trench width, water table, and 􀁤􀁾􀁰􀁴􀁨􀀠of cover, etc. For rigid conduits. the minimum strengths for the given class Texas Natural aesource Conversation eommission paqe 30 Design criteria for Seweraqe Systems , shall be noted in the appropriate standard for the pipe material. For the purpose of this section, riqid pipe is defined as concrete, vitrified clay, or ductile iron pipe. (C) other pipe materials may be considered on a case by case basis by the Executive Director. The desiqn and installation of such materials shall. qenerally follow the quidelines for flexible or riqid pipe with appropriate exceptions. (3) Jointinq Material. The materials used and methods to be applied in makinq joints shall be included in the technical specifications. Materials used for sewer joints shall have a satisfactory record of preventing infiltration and root entrance. Rubber gaskets, PVC compression joints, high compression polyurethane, welded or other types of factory made joints are required. (4) Testing of Installed Pipe. An infiltration, exfiltration or low-pressure air test shall be ., specified. copies of all test results shall be be made available to the Executive Director upon request. Tests shall conform to the following requirements: (A) Infiltration or Exfiltration Tests. The total exfiltration as determined by a hydrostatic head test, shall not exceed 50 qallons per inch •. diameter· per mUe of pipe per 24 hours at a Texas Natural Resoure, :onversation Commission Design criteria for Sewerage Syst8lllll " •. "" minimum test bead of two feet above the crown of the pipe at the upstrealll manhole. When pipes are installed below"" the groundwater level an infiltration test ,sball be used in lieu of the exfiltration test. ,'!'he total infiltration, as determined by a bydrostatic head test, shall not exceed 50 gallons per inch diameter per mile of pipe per 24 hours at a minimum test head of two feet above the crown of the pipe at the upstream manhole, or at least two feet above existing groundwater level, whichever is greater. For construction within the 2S year flood plain, the 'infiltration or exfiltration shall not exceed 10 gallons per inch diameter per mile of pipe per 24 hours at the same minimum test head. If the quantity of infiltration or exfiltration exceeds the maximum quantity specified, remedial action shall be undertaken in order to reduce the infiltration or exfiltration to an amount within the limits specified. specified. (B) Low Pressure Air Test. '!'he procedure for the low pressure air test shall conform to the procedures described in ASTM C-828, ASTM C-924, ASTM F-1417 or other appropriate procedures, except for testing times. '!'he test times shall be as outlined in this section. For sections of pipe ·1 . }'Texas Natural Reso!U'...... Conversation .cOllllldssion ." '. Page 32 Design criteria for Sewerage Systems less than 36-inch average inside diameter, the following procedure shall apply unless the pipe is to be joint t.ested. The pipe shall be pressurized to 3.5 psi greater than the pressure exerted by groundwater above the pipe. Once the pressure is . stabilized, the minimum time allowable for the pressure to drop from 3.5 pounds per square inch gauge to 2.5 pounds per square inch.gauge shall be computed from the folloWing equation: T-0 .085xDxK Q T -time for pressure to drop 1.0 pound per square inch gauge in seconds K -0.000419XOXL, but not less than 1.0 D -average inside pipe diameter in inches L D length of line of same pipe size being tested, in .feet Q -rate of loss, 0•.0015 cubic feet per minute per square foot internal surface shall be used Since a K value of less than 1.0 shall not be used, there are minimum testing.times for each pipe diameter as follows: Texas Natural Resourr IConversation Commission Design Criteria Pipe Diameter (inches) 6 8 t.10 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 The test may be stopped if no pressure loss has occurred during the first 25% of the calculated testing time. If any pressure loss or leakage has occurred during the first 25% of the testing period, then the test shall continue for the entire test duration as outlined above or until failure. Lines with a 27-inch average inside diameter and larger may be air tested at each joint. Pipe greater than 36 inch diameter must be tested for leakage at each joint. If the joint for·&..W'erag8 . syst_s -' , , .... Minimum Time (seconds) 340 454 567 680 850 1020 1190 1360 1530 1700 1870 .....:. Lenqth for Minimum Time (feet) 398 298 239 199 159 133 114 100 88 80 72 Page 33 Time for Longer Lenqth (seconds) 0.855(L) 1.520(L) 2.374(L) 3.419 (L) 5.342 (L) 7.693 (L) 10.471(L) 13.676(L) 17.309 (L) 21.369 (L) 25.856(L) J ) ..•••.•• • . )Texas Natural' Resource conversation 'Commission Page 34 Design criteria for sewerage Systems , . test is used, a visual inspection of the joint shall be performed immediately after testing. The pipe'is to be pressurized to 3.5 psi greater than the pressure exerted by groundwater above the pipe. Once the pressure has stabilized, the minimum time allowable for the pressure to drop from 3.5 pounds per square inch gauge to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge shall be 10 seconds. (C) Deflection Testing. Deflection tests shall be performed on all flexible pipes. For pipelines with inside diameters less than 27 inches, a rigid mandrel shall be used to measure deflection. For pipelines with an inside diameter 27 inches and greater, a method approved by the Executive Director shall be used to test for vertical deflections. Other methods shall provide a precision of ± two tenths of one percent (0.2 t) deflection. The test shall be conducted after the final backfill has been in place at least 30 days. No pipe shall exceed a deflection of five percent. If a pipe should fail to pass the deflection test, the problem shall be corrected and a second test shall be conducted after the final backfill has been in place an additional 30 days. The tests shall be performed without mechanical pulling devices. .The design engineer should recognize Texas Natural Resourc Conversation commission Page 35 Design criteria for Sewerage Systems !;, . 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀠that this is·a maximUlll deflection criterion for all pipes and a deflection test less than five percent may be 􀁭􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀠appropriate for specific types and sizes of pipe. Upon completion of construction, the design engineer or other Texas Registered Professional Engineer appointed by the owner shall certify, to the Executive Director, that the entire installation has passed the deflection test. This certification may be made in conjunction with the notice of completion required in 317.1(e) (1) of this title (relating to General Provisions). This certification shall be provided for the commission to consider the requirelDents of the approval to have been met. (i) Mandrel Sizinq. The rigid mandrel shall have an outside diameter (0.0.) equal to 95% of the inside diameter (I.D) of the pipe. The inside diameter of the pipe, for the purpose of detenining the outside diameter of the mandrel, shall be· the average outside diameter minus two minimum wall thicknesses for O. D. controlled pipe. and the average inside 􀁤􀁩􀁡􀁭􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠for I.D. controlled pipe, all dimensions shall be per appropriate standard. statistical or other "tolerance packages" . sbal1.not be considered in mandrel sizing. ! 1 􀁾􀀮􀁸􀁡􀁳􀀠 Natural Resource:Conversation Commission Page 36 Design criteria for Sewerag.Systems (ii) Kandrel Design. The rigid mandrel shall be constructed of a metal or a rigid plastic material that can withstand 200 psi without being deformed. The mandrel shall have nine , or more -runners" or "legs" as long as the total number of legs is an odd number. The barrel section of the mandrel shall havea length of at least 75t of the inside diameter of the pipe. A proving ring shall be provided and used for each size mandrel in use. (iii) Method Options. Adjustable or flexible mandrels are prohibited. A television inspection is not a substitute for the deflection test. A deflectometer may be approved for use on a case by case basis. Mandrels with removable legs or runners may be accepted on a case by case basis. (5) Bedding. Trenching, Bedding and Backfill. The width of the trench shall be minimized, but shall be ample to allow the pipe to be laid and jointed properly and to allow the backfill to be placed and compacted as needed. The trench sides shall be kept as nearly vertical as possible. As used herein, a trench shall be defined as that open cut portion of the excavation up to one foot above the pipe.' The engineer shall specify the maximum Texas Natural Resourc. _ 'Conversation commission Page 37 Design criteria 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠Sewerage Systems trench width. '!'he width 􀁯􀁾􀀠the trench shall be 􀁳􀁵􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀬􀀠but no greater than necessary, to ensure working room to properly and 􀁳􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁬􀁹􀀠place and compact haunching materials. '!'he space must be wider than the compaction equipment used in the pipe zone. A minimum clearance 􀁯􀁾􀀠4 incbes below and on each side of all pipes to the trench walls and 􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁯􀁲􀀠shall be provided. Bedding classes A, B, or C, as described in ASTM C 12 (ANSI A 106.2), Water Environment Federation (WEF) Manual 􀁯􀁾􀀠Practice (MOP) No. 9 or American Society of civil Engineers (ASCE) MOP 37 shall be used for all rigid pipes, provided that the proper strength pipe is used with .:the 􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁥􀁤􀀠bedding to support the anticipated load(s). Embedment classes lA, IB, II or III, as described in ASTM 0-2321 (ANSI K65.171) shall be used for all flexible pipes, provided the proper strength pipe is used with the specified bedding to support the anticipated load, except that ASTM 0-2680 may be used if the pipe stiffness is 200 psi or greater. Secondary backfill shall be of suitable material removed from excavation except where other material is specified. Debris, large clods or stones greater than 6 inches in diameter, organic matter, or other unstable materials shall not be used 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠backfill. Backfill shall be placed in such a manner as not to disturb the alignment 􀁯􀁾􀀠the pipe. Where trenching encounters } .Taxas Natural 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁣􀁾􀀠lonversation 􀁃􀁯􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠Design criteria for sewerage systems extensive fracture or fault zones, caves, or solutional modification to the rock strata, construction sball be balted and an engineer shall provide direction to accollllllOdate site conditions. Water line crossings shall be governed by special backfill requirements specified in 1317.13 of thila title (relating to Appendix E Separation Distances). (6) site Znspections. The Executive Director shall, on a randolil basis, perform site inspections. (7) Protecting Public Water Supply_ Water lines and sanitary sewers shall be installed no cl.oser to each other than nine feet betWeen outside diameters. Where this cannot be achieved, the sanitary sewer shall be constructed in accordance with 1317.13 of this title (relating to Appendix E -Separation Distances) and 30 TAC Section 290.44(e) (1) (relating to the location of water lines). Separation distances between sanitary sewer systems and water wells, springs, surface water sources and water storage facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of 30 TAC Sections 290.41(c) (1), 290.41(d) (1), 290.41 Ce) (1) ce) , 290.41(e)(3) (A), and 290.43(b) (3), as appropriate. Where rules governing. separation distance are in conflict, the most strict rule shall apply. No physical connection shall be made between a drinking water supply, public or private, and a sewer or any Texas Natural 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁣􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁯􀁮􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠Commission Page 39 Design criteria for Seweraqe Systems appurtenance. An air qap of a minimum of 1.8" or two pipe c1iameters, whichever is qreater, shall be maintainec1. between all potable water outlets and the maximum water surface elevation of sewer appurtenances. All appurtenances shall be c1esiqned and constructed so as to prevent any possibility of sewaqe entering the potable water system. (8) Excludinq Surface Water. Proposals for the construction of combined sewers will not be approved. Roof, street, or other types of c1rains which will permit entrance of surface water into the sanitarY sewer system shall not be acceptable. (9) .Active Geoloqic.Faults. For systems to be located in areas of known active qeoloqic faults, the design engineer shall locate any faults within the area of the collection system and the system shall be laid out to minimize the number of sewers crossing faults. Where crossings are unavoidable, the enqineering report shall specify desiqn features to protect the integrity of the sewer. Consideration should be given to joints providing maximum deflection and to providing manholes on each side of the fault so that a portable pump may be used in the event of sewer failures. Service connections within 50 feet of an active fault should be avoided. ) Texas Natural ResOurce, converSation Commission Page 40 Design Criteria 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠Sewerage Systems (10) Erosion control'. Erosion or sedimentation control that minimizes the 􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁳􀀠􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁲� �􀁮􀁯􀁾􀁾􀀠sball be provided durinq the construction phase 􀁯􀁾􀀠a project. TIlis requirement will be reviewed on a case by case basis. (b) capacities. (1) Sources. The peak flow 􀁯􀁾􀀠domestic sewage, peak 􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁷􀀠of waste 􀁾􀁲􀁏􀁊􀁬􀁬􀀠industrial piants, and maximUJll infiltration rates shall be considered in determining the hydraulic capacity 􀁯􀁾􀀠sanitary sewers. (2) Existing Systems. TIle design 􀁯􀁾􀀠extensions to sanitary sewers should be based on the data 􀁾􀁲􀁏􀁊􀁬􀁬􀀠the existing system. If this is not possible, the design shall be based on data from similar systems or 5317.2(b) (3), New systems. (3) New Systems. New sewers shall be sized using an appropriate engineering analysis of existing and future flow data. TIle executive director shall have the authority to determine the ' reliability and appropriateness 􀁯􀁾􀀠the data utilized for sizing the system. In the absence of local reliable flow data and engineering analysis. new sewer systems shall be designed on the basis of an estimated daily sewage flow contribution as shown in the table in 5317.4(a) of this title (relating to Wastewater Treatment Facilities). Minor sewers shall be designed such that when 􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁩􀁮􀁱􀀠􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁬􀀠they will transport wastewater at a rate Texas Natural Resour :.Conversation Commission Page 41 Design criteria for 􀁾􀁾􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀠Systems approximately four times the system design daily average flow. Main trunk, interceptor, and outfall sewers shall be designed to convey the contributed minor sewer flows. ec) Design Details. (1) Minimum size. No sewer other than service laterals and ;; force mains shall be less than six inches in diameter. (2) Slope. All sewers shall be designed and constructed with slopes sufficient to give a velocity When flowing full of not less than 2.0 feet per second. 􀁾􀁥􀀠grades shown in the followinq table are based on Manning's formula with an assumed "n factorn of 0.013 and constitute minimum acceptable slopes. 􀁾􀁥􀀠minimum acceptable nn" for design and construction shall be 0.013.' 􀁾􀁥􀀠"nn used takes into consideration the slime, grit and qrease layers that will affect hydraulics or hinder flow as the pipe matures. Size of Pipe Minimum Slope Maximum Slope In Inches I.D. in percent in percent 6 0.50 12.35 8 0.33 0.33 8.40 10 0.25 6.23 12 0.20 4.88 15 0.15 3.62 18 0.11 2.83 21 0.09 2.30 24 0.08 1.93 ,) -" ' Texas Natural Resource 'Conversation""commi.ssion Page 42 Design criteria for Sewerage systems . 􀁾􀀠27 0.06 1.65 30 0.055 1.43 33 0.05 1.26 36 0.045 1.12 ", 39 0.04 1.01 >39 * * * For lines larger than 39 inches in dillllleterI the slope may be determined by Hanning's formula (as shown below) to maintain a minimum velocity greater than 2.0 feet per second when flowing fUll and a maximum velocity less than" 10 feet per second When flowing full. v -velocity (ft/sec) n -Manning's roughness coefficient (0.013) 􀁾􀀠.. hydraulic radius (ft) S = slope (ft/ft) (3) High Velocity Protection. Where velocities greater than 10 feet per second will occur when the pipe is flowing fUll, at slopes greater than those listed above, special provisions shall be made to protect against pipe displacement by erosion of the bedding and/or shock. (4) Alignment. Sewers shall be laid in straight alignment with uniform grade between manholes unless slight Texas Natural Resourr ·.Conversation·CoDllllission Page 43 Design criteria for .Jwerage Systems deviations from straight alignment and uniform grade are justified to the satisfaction of the Executive Director. (5) Manhole Use. Manholes sball be placed at all points of change in alignment, grade or size of sewer, at the intersection of all sewers and the end of all sewer lines that will be extended at a future date. Any proposal which deviates from this requirement shall be justified to the satisfaction of the Executive Director. Clean-outs with watertight plugs may be installed in lieu of manholes at the end of sewers which are not anticipated to be extended. Such installations must pass a leakage test and a deflection test .. for all flexible lines. (A) Type. Manholes shall be monolithic, cast-in-place concrete, fiberglass, precast concrete, HDPE or of equivalent construction. Brick manholes shall not be used, nor shall brick be used to adjust manhole covers to grade. (B) Spacing. The maximum required manhole spacing for sewers with straight alignment and uniform grades are in the following table. Reduced manhole spacing may be necessary depending on the utility's ability to maintain its sewer lines. Areas subject to flooding require special consideration to minimize inflow. Pipe Diameter Maximum Manhole Spacing .. Texas Natural Resourcl.. .bonversation COiimIission', " Page 44 Design criteria 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠Sewerage systems (inches) (feet) 6 -15 500 18 -30 800 36 -48 1000 54 or larqer 2000 (C) 􀁉􀁮􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁷􀀠and 􀁉􀁮􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀺􀀠control. Watertiqht, 􀁳􀁩􀁺􀁥􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀭􀁳􀁩􀁺􀁥􀀠resilient connectors allowinq for 􀁤􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠settlement shall be used to connect pipe to manholes. Pipe to manhole connectors shall 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁭􀀠to AsTH C-923. Other types 􀁯􀁾􀀠connectors may 􀁢􀁾􀀠used when approved by the commission. Manholes should not allow surface water to drain into them. 􀁉􀁾􀀠manholes are located within the 100-year flood plain, the manhole covers shall have qaskets and be bolted or have another means 􀁯􀁾􀀠preventinq inflow. Where qasketed manhole covers are required for more than three manholes in sequence, an alternate means of ventinq shall be provided at less than 1,500 foot intervals. vents should be designed to minimize inflow. Impervious 􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠should be utilized for manhole construction in these ,areas in order to minimize infiltration. (D) Manhole Diameter. Manholes shall be of sufficient inside diameters to allow personnel to work within them and to allow proper joininq of the sewer Texas Natural Resour .·Conversation .COlIIJIliss.ion Page 45 'Design criteria for 􀁾􀀴􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀠systems pipes in the manhole vall. The inside diameter of manholes shall be not less than 48 inches. (E) Hanhole Inverts. '!'he bottom of the manhole shall be provided vith a "U" shaped channel that is as much as possible a smooth continuation of the inlet and outlet pipes. For manholes connected to pipes less than 15 inches in diameter the channel depth shall be at least half the largest pipe diameter. For manholes connected to pipes 15 to 24 inches in diameter the channel depth shall be at least three fourths the largest pipe diameter. For manholes connected to pipes greater than 24 inches in diameter the channel depth shall be at least equal to the largest pipe diameter. In manholes with pipes of different sizes, the tops of the pipes shall be placed at the same elevation and flow channels in the invert sloped on an even slope from pipe to pipe. '!'he bench provided above the channel shall be sloped at a minimum of 0.5 inch per foot. Where sewer lines enter the manhole higher than 24 inches above the manhole invert, the invert shall be filleted to prevent solids deposition. A drop pipe should be provided for a sever entering a manhole more than 30 inches above the invert. ,:.\ Texas Natural Resourc.. ,Conversation Commission 􀁾􀁊􀀠Paqe 46 Design Criteria for Sewerage Systams (F) Manhole Covers. Manhole covers of nominal 24 inch or larqer diameter are to be used for all sewer manho1es. (G) Manhole Access. Design of features for enterinq manholes shall be guided by the following criteria: (i) It is sug'lested that entrance into manholes in excess of four feet deep be accomplished by means of a portable ladder. other designs for 1n'lress and e'lress should be 'liven careful evaluation considerin'l the safety hazards associated with the use of manhole steps under certain conditions. (11) Where steps are used, they shall be made of a non-corrosive material and be in accordance with applicable OSHA specifications as published by the U.S. Department of Labor. (H) Testinq. Manholes shall be tested for leakaqe separately and independently of the wastewater lines by hydrostatic exfiltration testin'l, vacuum test1n'l, or other methods acceptable to the Commission. If a manhole fails a leaka'le test, the manhole must be made water tiqht and retested. The maximum leaka'le for hydrostatic testinq shall be 0.025 'lallons per foot diameter per foot of manhole depth per hour. Alternative test methods Texas.Natural ResourrConv:ersation:cOIIIlIIission. Page 47 Design criteria for 􀁓􀁟􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀠systams must ensure compliance with the above allowable leakage. Hydrostatic exfiltration testing shall be performed as follows: all wastewater lines coming into the manhole shall be sealed with an internal pipe plug, then the manhole shall be filled with water and maintained full for at least one hour•. For concrete manholes a wetting period of 24 hours may be used 􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁯􀁲􀀠to testing in order to allow saturation of the concrete. (6) Sag Pipes (Inverted Siphons). Sag pipes shall have two or more barrels, a minimum pipe diameter of six inches and shall be provided with necessary appurtenances for convenient flushing and maintenance. The manholes shall have adequate clearances for rodding, and in general, sufficient head shall be provided and pipe sizes selected to assure velocities of at least three feet per second at design flows. The inlet and outlet details shall be arranged so that the normal flow is diverted to one barrel. Provisions shall be made such that either barrel may be taken out of service for cleaning. (d) Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems. Use of alternative wastewater collection systems may be considered when justified by unusual terrain or geological formations, low popUlation density, difficult construction, or other circumstances where an alternative wastewater collection system would offer an advantage over a conventional gravity )Texas Natural Resourc\. ,bonversation,COIIimission' Page 48 Design Criteria for Sewerage systems system. An alternative wastewater collection system will be considered for approval oniy when conditions make a , '. conventional gravity collection system impractical. Alternative wastewater coliection system types include pressure sewers (septic tank effluent pumping or grinder pump systems), small diameter gravity sewers (minimum grade ,effluent sewers or variable grade effluent sewers), vacuum sewers and combinations thereof. Alternative wastewater collection systems are comprised of both on-site (interceptor tanks, pumps, pump tanks, vaives, service laterals) and offsite components (collector mains, force mains, vacuum stations, clean-outs, manholes, ,vents, and lift stations). Pressure sewer systems, small diameter gravity sewers and vacuum sewers will be approved on a case-by-case basis. The engineering report must justify the design of alternative wastewater collection systems to the satisfaction of the the Executive Director. The EPA's nManual of Alternative Wastewater Collection Systemsn (EPA/625/l-9l/024), the WEF's Alternative Sewer Systems (MOP FD-12), or other appropriate engineering literature, should be used as the basis for design. (1) Management. A responsible management structure under the regulatory jurisdiction of the THRce shall be established, to the satisfaction of the Executive Texas Natural Resourr Conversation.CollllllissiCln. Page 49 Design criteria for 􀀦􀁟􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀠Systems _ Director, to be in charge of the operation and maintenance of an alternative wastewater collection system. A legally binding service agreement shall be required to insure the alternative wastewater collection system is properly constructed and maintained. The required elements of the service agreement are as follows: CA) The document must be legally binding. CB) 􀁅􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠septic and pump tanks that are to be used as interceptor tanks for primary treatment, wastewater storage, or pump tanks prior to the discharge into an alternative sewer system must be cleaned, inspected, repaired, modified or replaced if necessary, to minimize inflow and infiltration into the collection system prior to connection. (C) The utility shall have approval authority for the design of the system including all materials and equipment prior to the installation of an interceptor tank, pressure sewer pump tank or vacuum system appurtenances. The materials shall comply with standard specifications sUbmitted to and approved by the Executive Director. (D) The utility must be able to approve the installation of the interceptor tank, pressure sewer pump tank or vacuum system appurtenances Texas Natural Resource'Conversation commission Page 50 . Design Criteria tor Sewerage Systems atter construction to ensure the installation was as specified. (E) The utility must be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the system includinq any interceptor tank, pressure sewer pump tank or vacuum system appurtenances incorporated. (F) The utility must be able to stop any discharqes trom any collection system appurtenances in order to prevent contamination of State waters. (G) The utility shall submit a maintenance schedule to the Executive Director which outlines routine service inspections and maintenance for all types ot pressure sewers, small diameter qravity sewers, and vacuum sewer-system components. (H) Pumping units, qrinder pumps, vacuum sewer appurtenances, interceptor tanks, shall be reqarded as inteqral components of the system and not as a part of the home plumbinq. (I) Provision to ensure collection system inteqrity durinq a power outaqe (two-year event) shall be incorporated into the desiqn. Power outaqe duration will be determined as -described in subsection 317.3(e) (1). (2) Pressure Sewer System Desiqn Considerations. The followinq shall be submitted to and approved by the Executive Director: 1 ,Texas Natural .e.esource Conversation COlIIIIl.. ..ision Page!Design criteria ror Sewerage Systems CA) Hydraulic calculations .for sizing the pressul sewer pumping system shall be based on providin the firm capacity to pump the expected peak 􀁦􀁬􀁾􀀠'!'hese calculations shall include system and 􀁰􀁾􀀠curves as described in sUbsection 317. 3 (c) (4), WE well capacity calculations based on minimum cycJ times as described in sUbsection 317.3(2) (4)(B) and emergency and flow equalization storage a necessary. The number of units pumping at any 01 time may be estimated based on appropriat engineering literature; (B) Flow velocities in the range of three to five fe( per second; (e) The installation of air relief valves; CD) '!'he provision of means to flush all lines in tl system; (E) The installation of clean-outs; and (F) Development of procedures whereby portions of tl pressure system may be rerouted with tempora: lines in the event of leaks, construction, , repair. (3) Pipe Selection. Appropriate ASTK, ANSI ANSI or AWl standards shall be specified for alternative wastewat. collection system pipe and joints. Pipe which willi used in pressure sewer systems shall have a miniml sustained working pressure rating of 150 pounds p' Texas Natural Resource Conversation commission Page 52 Design criteria for Sewerage Systems 􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀠inch gauge as per appropriate standard. Pipe selection shall also conforDI to subsection (a) (1), (2), (3) and (5) of this section. (4) Leakage Testing. All alternative wastewater collection systems eomponents shall be tested for leakage. Testing procedures for on-site system cOlDPonents, small diameter gravity sewer"systems and vacuum sewer systems will be approved on a case-by-ease basis. Pressure sewer installation shall be tested for leakage with a hydrostatic test. copies of all test results shall be made available to the Executive Director upon request. Leakage in the pressure sewer hydrostatic test shall be defined as the quantity of water that must be supplied into' the pipe or any valved seetion thereof, to maintain pressure within 5 pounds per square inch of the •, speeified test pressure after the air in the pipeline has been expelled. The test pressure shall be either a minimum of 25 pounds per square inch gauge or 1.5 times the maximum force main design pressure, whiehever is larger. The maximum allowable leakage shall be ealeulated using the fOrDIula' below. If the quantity of leakage exeeeds the maximum amount ealculated, remedial aetion shall be taken to reduce the leakage to an amount within the allowable limit as follows: L -leakage in gal/hr S -length of pipe in ft 􀁾􀁾􀁸􀁡􀁳􀀠Natural Resource'conversation Commission Page 54 Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems (D) Alarms, warning lights, or other suitable indicators of unit malfunction shall be installed at each pumping station. (E) Whenever any pumping station handles waste from two or more residential housing units or from any public establishment, dual pump units shall be provided to assure continued service in the event of equipment malfunction. This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 1, 1993. Mary Ruth Holder Director, Legal Division Texas Natural Resource conservation commission Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission REQUIREl'I • Consumer Confidence Report . ,--" • SmartScape CD, 􀀻􀁴􀁊􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀠Description of eacb piece: ff+ltv c b 'G-Cover Letter: • "Did you know" filcts • What is Addison doing to save water? • New ordinances • ""Watch for more information on the website" Consumer Confidence Report: • Addison drinking water is safe • Charts showing content • Water Quality Monitoring Results • Where does your water come from? • Special information for people with weakened inunune systems • Letter from Ron Conservation Brochures: • Keith getting brochures from Texas Water Development Toilet Tahlets: • Mike is getting these (here Ctre. :3 8-'5' j;p.c.5 1(1f!5$J?5SmartScape CD's: • Slade is getting enough CD's W( ti--􀁝􀀺􀁲􀁜􀀢􀁬􀀧􀀩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀶􀀠