EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Permits OWEP June 12.1984 Pretreatment implementation Review Task Force Interim Report to the Administrator 5PA HI/ L984.1 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Library, Room 2404 FM-211-A 401 M Street, S.W. , DC. 20460 ------- United States Environmental Protection Agency June 12, 1984 £ PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ------- ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 JUN 8 !984 OFFICE OF WATER MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Pre treatment Implementation Review Task Force Interim Report FROM: TO: Rebecca W. Hanmer, Chairperson Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force The Administrator The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (P.IRT) was established at your direction in February of.this year to provide advice to EPA on the implementation of the national pretreatment program. PIRT has held three primary meetings and its subcommittees have met separately. The focal point of these discussions has been guidance, training and other immediate steps which EPA can take to facilitate the program and assist all parties involved. The product of these meetings is the PIRT Interim Report to the Administrator, which I, as Chairperson, present to you today. This report consists of primarily consensus views on common pretreatment program implementation problems experienced by industries, States, and municipalities. Task Force members could not arrive at a complete consensus on a few issues and, for these, both majority and minority views are presented in the Interim Report. The Interim Report is the product of four months of intensive work by the PIRT members, including repre- sentatives of State and municipal governments, industry, public interest groups, and EPA Regional Offices. Among the issues PIRT has addressed are the complexity of certain pretreatment program requirements, needs for guidance and information dissemination, enforcement policies, funding' needs, delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the various governmental entities involved in the pretreatment program, and certain regulatory changes that would facilitate pretreatment program implementation. In addition, PIRT has established a priority recommendation for guidance reports in selected areas, to be issued as soon as possible. (See Appen- dix A) ------- - 2 - Many issues of concern to PIRT, including a number of very difficult or complex issues, are not addressed in this report. They will be studied and debated during the second phase of PIRT's activities which are already underway. Recommendations on these issues will be presented to you in a final report in December. Among the issues to be addressed in this second phase are: removal credits, centralized waste treatment, the combined wastestream- formula, integrated facilities, Fundamen- tally Different Factor variances, development and approval of State pretreatment programs, reporting forms, and sampling techniques. A complete preliminary list of these issues is attached to the Interim Report. (See Appendix C) I believe this Interim Report will be of great value to EPA as it continues efforts to implement the national pretreatment program. Agreement on these recommendations by a Task Force comprised of members representing the diversity of interests affected by the program is a significant step forward for all concerned. The PIRT members would appreciate a rapid review of the recommendations in the Interim Report so that they may consider EPA's response during the first few months of PIRT's second phase. The Task Force appreciates the opportunity to advise you on these important issues. ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.AGENCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS - COMMITTEES, BOARDS, PANELS, AND COUNCILS PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE 1. PURPOSE. This Charter is issued to establish the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force for an eleven month period in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. (App. I) 9(c). 2. AUTHORITY. The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task F.orce is being established by the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator by sections 104 and 307(a)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended. It is determined that this Task Force/ which will assist the Agency in'performance of its duties as outlined by section 307 of the FWPCA, is in the public interest. 3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force is essential to the continued progress of the Agency's industrial waste pretreatment and control mission in Title III of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (Clean Water Act). The common implementation problems experienced by industry, States and municipalities will be examined and options for program improvement developed and debated. The need for guidance, training programs, technical assistance, and policy for interpretation will be the focus of activity. Where it becomes necessary, regulatory amendments will also be discussed. 4. FUNCTIONS. The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force will provide advice and divergent views to the Administrator in the implementation of the national pretreatment program. The day- to-day problems experienced by municipalities, States and industries implementing the part 403 General Pretreatment regulations and the Categorical Pretreatment Standard regulations will be reviewed. Advice and comments to the Administrator will include technical, legal and policy changes which can improve implementation of the program nationwide while addressing concerns expressed by industry, States, municipalities and environmental interest groups. The Task Force provides a forum for discussion among the affected groups which may avert the use of litigation, as has occurred in the past. Issue papers will be developed to examine .the problems, suggest options and recommend action. The issue papers will be the basis of Task Force discussions and any recommendations to the Administrator. The Task Force expects to produce an interim report in May, 1984. This report will identify important problems ------- ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER in the area of pretreatment implementation and include a preliminary analysis of ways .of achieving rapid and effective implementation through such assistance methods as guidance, training programs, workshops, technical assistance and policy interpretation. In December 1984 the Task Force will prepare a detailed analysis and final report of implementation problems that require changes to the general pretreatment regulations and will recommend specific regulatory changes. 5. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS. The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force will consist of eighteen members, including the Chairperson, appointed by the Deputy Administrator. Membership will consist of individuals with special experience or interest in the'pretreatment area or environmental protection in general. Specifically, the membership will consist of: four industry representatives, three State representatives, three Federal employees, four municipal representatives and three environmental interest group members. Meetings- of the Task Force will be held four times during the calendar year or at the request of the Chairperson. The Task Force is authorized to form subcommittees which will be comprised solely from members of the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force. Meetings will be called, announced, and held in accordance with the EPA Manual on Committee Management. The manual provides for open meetings of advisory committees? requires that interested persons be permitted to file written statements before or after meetings; and provides for oral statements by interested persons to the extent that time permits. A full-time salaried officer or employee of the Agency who will be designated as Chairperson or Executive Secretary,, will be present at all meetings and is authorized to adjourn any such meeting whenever it is determined to be in the public interest. The annual operating cost of the Task Force will total approximately $90,000 which includes 2.6 work-years for Agency Task Force members, staff and clerical support. This cost includes travel expense reimbursement for Task Force members (excluding the industrial representatives) and the Agency support staff. 6. DURATION.. -The P.retreatment. Implementation -Review. Task- Force will terminate eleven months after the Congressional filing date. FEB 1984 Agency Approval Date January 25,1984 GSA Review Date FEB ? \%^ DateFiled with Congress Administrator ------- PIRT PERSONNEL Chairperson: Rebecca W. Hanmer, EPA Members: James B. Blacklidge, Craftsman Plating and Tinning Corp. Trudy Coxe, Save the Bay Frances Dubrowski, Natural Resources Defense Council Kenneth A. Fenner, EPA Region V Rodney C. Glover, Jr., Proctor and Gamble Co. Kenneth Goldstein, State of New Jersey Stanton J. Kleinert, State of.Wisconsin George E. Kurz, City of Chattanooga, Tennessee H.F. Lindner, General Electric Co. Charles D. Malloch, Monsanto Co. Donald L. Menno, City of Buffalo, New York Jon L. Olson, City of Rockford, Illinois Gerald C. Potamis, EPA Region I Robert R. Robichaud, EPA Region X Charles E. Strehl; City of York, Pennsylvania Mark Van Putten, National Wildlife Federation Gene B. Welsh, State of Georgia EPA Staff: Richard J. Kinch, Executive Director Jerry N. Parker, Assistant Executive Director Salahdin Abdul-Haqq, Facilitator ------- ------- PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PIRT Recommendations 1 A. Program Simplification and Clarification 2 1. Suspension of the Definition of Interference 2 2. Determining Interference . 3 3. Local Limits 4 4. State Water Quality Standards 6 5. Local Limits Based on Effluent Toxicity Criteria 7 6. Sludge Disposal Critera 7 7. Notification of Solid Waste Disposal Obligations 8 8. Categorical Standards 8 9. Combined Wastestream Formula 11 10, POTW implementation Guidance ' 14 11. industrial Monitoring Frequency 14 12. Monitoring for Toxic Organics 15 13. Pretreatment Newsletter 15 14. Removal Credits ' 1.6 15. Removal Credits: the Multi-Plant Averaging Issue , 16 16. Regulation of Small Industrial Users 17 B. Enforcement 17 1. Enforcement Policy Statement 18 2. Enforcement against POTWs without Program 18 Applications 3. Guidance 19 ------- - 2 - 4. Submission of Baseline Reports 5. Compliance Reports 6. Enforcement of Program Requirements C. Resources 1. EPA Regional Offices 2. Processing Removal Credit Applications 3. State Programs 4. POTW Programs 5. EPA Headquarters D. Roles and Relationships E. Regulatory Changes 1. §403.3(i) Definition of Interference 2. §403.3{n) Definition of Pass-Through §403.5 Prohibited Discharges §403.3(k) Definition of New Source §403.6 Criteria for New Source Determinations Change of Ownership §413 Electroplating Categorical Standards 3 4 5 6, 7, 8, §403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise Pretreatment Standards; Submission for Approval §403.11 Approval Procedures for POTW Pretreatment Programs and POTW Revision of Categorical Pretreatment Standards 10. §403.12 Approved Testing Methods 11. §403.12 Approved Sampling Techniques 12. §403.12 Self-Monitoring vs. POTW Monitoring 19 20 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 27 29 29 29 30 33 33 34 35 36 36 37 ------- - 3 - 13. Annual POTW Reports 14. §403.15 Net/Gross 15. §403 Appendices B, C, and D Must Be Updated Minority Statement Appendices A. Guidance Priorities B. EPA Preliminary Assessment of the Interim Report C. PIRT Phase II 37 38 39 43 A-l B-l C-l ------- ------- PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE INTERIM REPORT The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT) was charged with reviewing pretreatment program development, approval, and implementation. We identified five sets of issues affecting the functioning of the program. First, pretreatment program requirements are viewed by many as being complex and not well understood. EPA has the ability to simplify and clarify the program and should do so where appropriate. Second, enforcement of program requirements is critical for protecting the environment. This approach will also promote consistent implementation of the program requirements nationwide. Third, the success of the program depends on adequate resources. At present, EPA has not budgeted enough resources to implement the program. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and States are likewise pressed for the necessary funds and people. Fourth, the success of the program also depends on a working partnership between three different levels of government: < the federal government, the States and the POTWs. The roles and . responsibilities of each must be clearly spelled out and adhered to. Fifth, we identified a set of regulatory changes ------- - 2 - For each set of issues, we developed specific recommendations for EPA. A. PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION EPA should provide more regional workshops, guidance manuals, and seminars to explain the pretreatment program to States and POTWs, the business community and the general public, in the interest of simplification and clarification, EPA's pretreatment guidance manuals should address problems faced by the majority of sources and should leave more atypical problems to be worked out on a case-by-case basis with State or Regional offices. Future pretreatment regulations, standards and guidance manuals should be written as simply as possible using examples to foster maximum understanding of the program. PIRT recommends that EPA issue guidance or clarification on the following points: 1) Suspension of the Definition of Interference On February 10, 1984 (40 FR 5131) the Agency suspended the definition. Currently, POTW representatives are not sure whether they can take enforcement _ac.tion due to interference when there is no promulgated definition. As soon as possible, the Agency should publish an interim statement regarding the Agency's policy on how to deal with enforce- ment where interference .at the POTW is occurring before the new definition is promulgated. The Agency should inform Control Authorities that the- Court specifically ------- - 3 - declined to remand the regulatory prohibition against inter- ference. In cases where causation is clear, they or the Agency can legally take enforcement action using the common English language definition of interference. 2) Determining Interference Many POTW representatives do not understand ,how to determine if an industrial user(s) is causing interference with the operation of the POTW. EPA should develop guidance to POTWs to assist in the determination of an interference and in the tracking of bonafide interferences back to the source(s). The document should consider the following: (a) definition of different types of interference (at the treatment plant and in the sewer line); (b) steps for determination of bonafide interference (deterioration and corrosion of sewer mains, a manhole cover blowing off, are interference generally caused from industrial sources, interference at the treatment plant needs detailed analysis to assure it is caused from indus- trial sources and not a result of poor operation and maintenance at the plant); . (c) discussion of equipment (e.g., sensing devices) useful in alerting POTW staff of potential problems; (d) discussion of techniques available to segregate or divert influent wastewaters capable of causing interference or upsets at the treatment plant; ------- - 4 - (e) discussion of analytical techniques to quickly analyze pollutants potentially causing the interference; (f) development of an action plan to track the source of a bonafide interference '(review of industrial survey to deter- mine potential industries, preparing a grid chart of potential users, sampling critical interceptors, sampling potential users at their site and/or downstream in the sewer line); (g) discussion of level of effort to accomplish (b) & (f) by a small, medium, and large size POTWs; and (h) discussion of level of effort where immediate endanger- ment of life or operation of the treatment plant is evident or imminent. (i) listing of specific items which constitute interference. 3) Local Limits Defensible local limits are,the cornerstone of an effective POTW Pretreatment Program. Yet, some POTW representatives do not understand., the relationship, between categorical pretreatment standards and local limits, or even how to develop local limits. Development of local limits as described in §403.5(c) of the General Pretreatment Regulations is not well understood. and is not consistently being applied by EPA Regional i Offices, States, and POTWs. The two main points that are ------- - 5 - not well understood deal with whether local standards are required, and if so, whether they are required to be developed as part of program development. PIRT strongly recommends that EPA expeditiously issue a policy statement regarding development of local limits by POTWs, so that it can be uniformly applied. The policy statement should specifically address the question of whether local limits need to be developed as a prerequisite of POTW program approval. i [Concurring, statement F. Dubrowski, T. Coxe: The General Pretreatment Regulations already require POTWs to have local limits which require compliance with all applicable pretreat- ment standards and requirements, including the prevention of interference and pass-through. Hence, the only role a policy statement could serve is to re-emphasize this point.J In addition the agency should provide guidance on how to compare local limits with categorical pretreatment stan- dards, and should emphasize through a policy.statement that local limits take precedence over categorical standards, if the local limit is more stringent. In addition, develop- ment of local limits might be facilitated by distribution of a computer model. The computer model being developed by EPA should be submitted for public comment'; appropriate changes made to produce an effective proven computer model; and then widely distributed. ------- 4) State WaterQuality Standards State water quality standards establish the need to develop local limits and form a technical and legal foundation for developing these limits. Unfortunately, few States have numerical water quality standards for toxics other than heavy metals. Although all States have the narrative "free from" standards that the waters be free from toxic substances in toxic amounts, this standard does not readily support the development of local limits. For example, according to--EPA staff, less than one percent of all POTW NPDES permits contain numerical limits for the discharge of toxics (including heavy metals) . Recently, EPA has emphasized the importance of reviewing and revising State water quality standards to address more spe- cifically toxic pollutants by issuing the new water quality standards regulations, 48 F.R. 51400 et. seq. (Nov. 8, 1983). PIRT generally supports EPA's effort to encourage the upgrading of State water quality standards including those for toxics as outlined in these regulations. In particular, PIRT supports EPA's commitment to promulgating water quality standards for States unable or unwilling to develop standards. However, it is unclear when EPA will take such action. EPA should issue policy guidance to the Regions and States specifically de- cribing when EPA will promulgate water quality standards for States unwilling or unable to develop standards which address toxic substances. ------- - 7 - Another deficiency in the water quality standards revision process is the absence of any EPA tracking system to evaluate nationwide progress in revising State water quality standards for toxics. PIRT recommends that EPA headquarters develop a tracking system for assessing State progress in developing needed toxics standards and for sharing information nationwide, 5) LocalLimits Based on Effluent Toxicity Criteria EPA's "effluent toxicity" alternative to generating water quality-based effluent limitations ("Policy on Water Quality-Based Controls for Toxic Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act") for complex POTW effluents may provide POTWs with increased legal support for developing local limits; it will not, without further guidance, assist POTWs in the technical intricacies of developing these limits. EPA should develop a scientifically supportable methodology for evaluating effluent toxicity and applying the "toxicity reduction evaluation" process to POTW effluents. It should then issue guidance when available and after opportunity for public comment. In addition, this technical guidance should demonstrate by use of case studies, how this evaluation process can be used to develop appropriate requirements for POTW users. 6) Sludge Disposal Criteria To date, EPA has promulgated only skeletal criteria governing the management and disposal of POTW sludge. There are land application regulations for cadmium and PCBs, Clean Air Act ------- - 8 - incineration requirements, and ocean dumping controls. How- ever, EPA is reconsidering all of these controls in the context of a comprehensive initiative to regulate municipal sludge management and disposal.- Without sludge criteria POTWs can have a difficult time developing local limits rela- tive to sludge protection. EPA should expeditiously develop sludge management and disposal requirements. It is critical that EPA state its basic approach for developing these requirements and publish available information on municipal sludge disposal as soon as possible. 7) Notification of Solid Waste Disposal Obligations Section 403.8(f)(2)(iii) requires POTWs to notify industrial users subject to the POTW pretreatment program of any applic- able requirements under §§204(b) and 405 of the Act and Subtitles C and D of the Resource Conservative and Recovery \ Act (RCRA). Many control authorities are not sufficiently knowledgeable of RCRA regulations to fulfill this require- ment. EPA should develop a handbook for POTWs so that POTWs, charged by §403.8(f)(2)(iii) to notify industrial users of"therr~RCRAobligations, will be- able:to discharge this responsibility. 8) Categorical Standards EPA has issued categorical pretreatment standards that are: (1) concentration based, (2) production based and (3) both. To confirm compliance with a concentration based standard, the Control Authority must take a wastewater sample and ------- - 9 - measure the concentration of pollutants; this result can then be compared to the standard. To confirm compliance with a production based standard the Control Authority V must (I) take a wastewater sample and measure the concentration of pollutants; (2) measure the flow; (3) measure production, which either requires the Control Authority, to accept reports by the industrial user or enter the facility and take measure- ments of square meters, mass or other production factors through the process(es); and (4) multiply the concentration times the flow, divide by the production rate and compare to the standard. The most difficult step for production based standards occurs if the Control Authority desires to confirm production. (a) Converting Production Based Standards For a direct discharger the permit authority will simplify implementation of production based limits by using a permit system. A plant production level is specified and multi- plied by the production based limit to establish a mass of pollutants per day allowance in the permit. Direct dis- chargers are required to comply with this mass per day allowance specified in the permit. This procedure allows the Control Authority to monitor compliance by measuring the concentration of pollutants and the flow, multiplying the results and comparing to the allowance. It is not clear to POTWs if: (1) this same procedure is appropriate for indirect dischargers, which do not have a federal permit system; (2) how it could be implemented; and (3) if equiva- lent concentration limits for the plant could be used by ------- - 10 - & establishing a production rate and flow in a permit or other legally enforceable mechanism, and multiplying the plant production by the production based standard and then dividing by the plant flow. The Agency should issue, as soon as possible, a statement informing Control Authorities of the usefulness with which permits or contracts may be used to convert production based standards to equivalent mass or concentration limits. (b) Implementation of Categorical Standards The Agency needs to develop and distribute as soon as possible a guidance document on the implementation of categorical standards that contains at least the following: (1) Examples of how production based standards are utilized in the POTWs permit or other legally enforce- able mechanism (for setting the production level in the permit and establishing a mass per day standard, or setting both the flow and production level in the permit to estab- lish an equivalent concentration requirement for ease of compliance monitoring by the Control Authority.) (2) A discussion on how to interpret production and flow information from industrial facilities to be able to establish reasonable effluent limitations at the industrial facility. ------- -li- te) Alternative Concentration Based Standards There is an additional burden for POTWs to implement pro- duction based categorical standards. Because many POTWs recognize the burden, but do not forsee the benefit of production based standards, they are resisting implementing production based standards. The Agency should publish in the Federal Register for each category with only production based standards, the daily pounds of pollutants removed from raw waste that results from the production based regulation and the amount that a concentration based standard would remove. This information should be presented on a total industry and average plant basis. Knowing the difference in removal would result in less resistance by POTWs towards implementing production-based standards. However, where there is not a significant difference in the amounts removed, the Agency should reconsider providing an alternative concentration based standard in addition to the production based standard, if this could be done readily without disrupting the . implementation of categorical standards. 9) Combined Wastestream Formula . - The combined wastestream formula is the method by which industrial dischargers must calculate their limits when they mix wastestreams covered by different standards, combine regulated and unregulated wastestreams, or mix ------- - 12 - process wastestreams with noncontact cooling or sanitary waters. For POTWs and the industrial users application of this formula is something new. Guidance documentation is needed very quickly for affected industrial users and POTWs in applying the Combined Waste- stream Formula to real life situations. Such guidance should include, but need not be limited to, the following issues: (a) Clarification of definitions of terms (regulated, un- regulated, and dilution) used in the combined waste stream formula. For example, the regulation does not explain that a wastestream subject to a categorical standard is considered an unregulated wastestream when calculating limits for pollutants not specified in the standard. (b) Immediate publication of corrections to Appendix D of the 1981 General Pretreatment Regulations. The current version, which was incorrect when published in 1981, incor- rectly labels certain wastestreams as dilution streams. This results in confusion, or erroneously, too stringent requirements if used in the combined wastestream formula. (c) Clarification of methods for combining mass based and concentration based categorical standards. Currently the regulations specify how to combine concentration based regulations, or production based regulations but not how to ------- -13- combine both, EPA should specify how the production rate is to "be determined for combination. (d) Clarification of methods for combining total toxic organic (TTO) standards from different categories. For various categories, TTO is comprised of different lists of toxic organics. In using the combined wastestream formula, it is not clear whether these limits are considered the same parameter. (e) Guidance to the Control Authorities and industrial users on how to utilize the combined wastestream formula; including specific emphasis on how to determine appro- priate inputs for flow and production when these parameters are variable or difficult to measure. (f) Examples of how to utilize the combined wastestream formula to compare local limits against mass based standards, (g) Evaluation of the utility of applying the "building block" approach in (49 FR 8121, 3/5/84) as an alternative to the combined wastestream formula when flow measurements are not available. The alternative calculation should be documented in permits, contracts, or other enforceable documents which should be -issued to the user. [Separate statement - F. Dubrowski, T. Coxe: We agree that an EPA guidance document containing examples of how to use the combined wastestream formula would make application easier for POTWs and industrial users; we do ------- - 14 - not agree that the formula is unclear or that EPA should waste its resources or disrupt compliance efforts by exploring alternatives like the "building block". In addition, we emphasize that the formula, properly applied, . does not allow different toxic organics to be averaged together for purposes of determining discharge limits.] 10) POTW Implementation Guidance The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits has begun prelimi- nary work towards developing pretreatment implementation guidance for POTWs addressing such areas as: compliance inspection and monitoring activities, industrial reporting, and enforcement activities. The Agency should: (a) Issue priority guidance in final form before the end of FY 1984. (b) Allow the Task Force to review the draft guidance. (c) Send the final guidance to Regions, States and POTWs from Headquarters. PIRT requests that the POTW members work with EPA staff to prioritize the implementation guidance. 11) Industrial Monitoring Frequency By regulation, all industrial users subject to a categorical standard shall submit a compliance report to the Control Authority during the months of June and December, unless required more frequently by the Control Authority. However, the general and categorical regulations are silent on how ------- - 15 - frequently industrial users should be monitoring their wastewater discharges. The Control Authority is left with the responsibility of determining monitoring and/or self- monitoring frequencies that provide a representative analysis of the industrial discharge. The Task Force recommends that the Agency provide guidance to municipalities on the selection of monitoring frequen- cies that are representative, cost effective and provide adequate detection of violations for appropriate enforcement, (Minority statement: Some members of the Task Force believe that EPA should set monitoring frequencies by rule.] 12) Monitoring for Toxic Organics Many industrial users regulated by total toxic organic categorical limits are unaware of the requirements in the General Pretreatment Regulations (§403.12(b)) that baseline monitoring reports must contain toxic organic monitoring data. The Agency should clarify the reporting requirements for these users. 13) Pretreatment Newsletter A pretreatment newsletter should be published and directed to the Control Authorities. The newsletter could be based on the Guide to Guidelines (an Effluent Guidelines Division newsletter which was published twice) format and be published once per quarter or at least semiannually. The newsletter should focus on the latest activities in guidelines, seminars and workshops, other publications pertaining to pretreatment, and regulatory issues. ------- - 16 - 14) Removal Credits PIRT recommends that EPA provide guidance and work with POTWs, States, and others, where removal credit authority is desired by the POTW, to place in operation removal ( credit systems which meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act. PIRT intends to review the removal credit regulations after EPA's promulgation of an amendment which is scheduled for June, 1984, and to offer EPA its recommendations on them, 15) Removal Credits; the Multi-Plant Averaging Issue Most POTWs have a single treatment system. When applying for removal credits, the allowance is based on the percent of the pollutant removed by the treatment system. However, there are some POTW authorities that oversee two,or more treatment works. Some people have questioned whether POTWs with multiple treatment plants could assign an average removal rate for the entire POTW. PIRT recommends that POTWs with multiple plants should have only two options with respect to removal credits: . a) removal credits should be determined on a plant- by-plant basis; or b) if the POTW wishes to use a single removal credit for all plants, it should be restricted to the removal credit demonstrated by the least efficient plant. ------- B. - 17 - The law ties credits to local POTW performance. The fact that one local agency owns and operates several treatment works does not allow grouping of the treatment systems. In many cases, removals could differ widely from.treatment plant to treatment plant. Furthermore, different treatment systems could discharge at separate locations or even to different bodies of water. These treatment systems need to have inter- ference and pass through prevented at their own location. 16) Regulation of Small Industrial Users Initially, there was some concern that small industrial dischargers (deminimus dischargers) should be exempt from applicable categorical standards where they are now covered. It was pointed out that some small industries discharge highly concentrated toxics and incompatible pollutants which could upset a waste treatment plant more adversely than high flow, moderately concentrated pollutant industries. The Task Force has examined this issue and recommends that all industrial users must comply with their appropriate categorical standards. Control Authorities have flexibility to deal with appropriate monitoring for truly insignificant discharges. ENFORCEMENT Implementation of the pretreatment program is well behind the required regulatory schedules. Most of the POTWs which were required to implement.programs by July 1, 1983, do not have approved programs.- Deadlines, for baseline reports and compliance with categorical standards for certain indus- ------- - 18 .- tries have either passed or are imminent. For example, electroplaters were to submit baseline reports and then come into compliance during the months of April and June of 1984. Large numbers have not submitted baseline reports or will be in violation of the standards. To get the program imple- mented the Agency needs to take firm enforcement action. 1) Enforcement Policy Statement The Administrator should immediately issue a strong statement to support enforcement of the National Pretreatment Program and take enforcement actions to demonstrate the Agency's resolve. 2) Enforcement against POTWs without Program Applications The General Pretreatment Regulations require certain POTWs to obtain approved programs by July 1, 1983. There are a total of 1675 POTWs which are required to develop a program. As of April 1, 1984 only 523 have obtained approval. Action is needed to correct this situation. a) By July 1, 1984, EPA should publish a list of all POTWs which are required to submit local pretreatment programs and have not submitted complete program applications as outlined in §403*9. b) By August 1, 1984, the Approval Authority should: i) Determine what type of enforcement action is appropriate for all POTWs which have not submitted complete program approval applications as outlined in §403.9; ------- - 19 - ii) initiate that enforcement action. c) So that compliance is achieved as soon as possible, the Agency should seek to both identify and provide technical guidance to those POTWs which fail to submit a complete program application by July 1, 1984. 3) Guidance . Make final and distribute to Regions, States and POTWs not later than July 1, 1984/ an EPA Pretreatment program guidance to POTWs for implementation and enforcement of industrial categorical standards. The Task Force recommends that EPA review its draft guidance to incorporate enforce- ment recommendations contained in this report. 4) Submission of Baseline Reports Out of approximately 14,000 facilities subject to categorical pretreatment standards, 10,200 are covered by the Electro- plating regulations. Approximately half of these facilities were required to submit a baseline report by September 12, 1981; EPA set a date of June 25, 1983 for the other half. The importance of these reports is that they provide pollutant data to determine whether the facility is already in compliance and, if not, the industrial user is supposed to submit a schedule for compliance. Control Authorities should take enforcement action against industrial users who fail to submit baseline monitoring reports or progress reports. In addition, EPA should ------- - 20 - determine how many industrial users will not meet compliance deadlines for the categorical standards. EPA should utilize this information in its budget process to ensure adequate resources for pretreatment enforcement. 5) Compliance Reports Similar to baseline reports, the compliance reports indicate whether the facility is in compliance with the categorical standards. Compliance reports are due 90 days after the compliance deadline. The Agency should pursue submittal of compliance reports from industrial users affected by categorical standards. 6) Enforcement of ProgramRequirements The Task Force recommends the Agency take enforcement action against both noncompliant industrial users and their POTWs which have not enforced the program require- ments. The enforcement process for violations of categori- cal standards against industrial users should begin immediately. The Agency should advise delegated pretreat- ment States to take similar enforcement action. C. RESOURCES There are 1675 POTWs and approximately 14,000 industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment standards. Considering the magnitude of the affected population, this program is roughly equivalent to the NPDES direct discharge program, except that while pretreatment needs resources to organize as well as function, pretreatment resources are significantly less at the national and State level. ------- - 21 - 1) EPA Regional Offices EPA Regional Offices are responsible for numerous activities to implement the pretreatment program, including: a) Assessing POTW and State program applications b) Reviewing removal credit applications c) Making categorical determinations d) Being the Control Authority for industrial users where neither the State or POTW have been approved e) Overseeing State and POTW programs. Currently the resources for the Regional Offices average approximately three persons per Region dedicated to pretreat- ment implementation. EPA should either obtain additional appropriations or re- allocate resources to dedicate an additional 150 person years of effort for the pretreatment program, to be located at the Regional Offices. This item is critical for fiscal years 1985 and 1986. PIRT has developed this estimate of need after its review of work remaining to be done for program approval and oversight. . . ' Resources for pretreatment should be clearly integrated into the EPA budget and allocated according to the different work loads identified in each Region. 2) Processing Removal Credit Applications To date, approximately ten removal credit applications have been submitted. However, most POTWs do not have approved programs, have not been actively pursuing imple- ------- - 22 - mentation of the program, or may have been waiting for the Agency's amendment to the removal credit provisions. As pretreatment requirements are implemented, many more POTWs could apply for credits. EPA should dedicate adequate resources to ensure that removal credit applications are processed effectively and promptly. 3} State Programs Of the 56 jurisdictions eligible for pretreatment program authority, 36 have approved National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority. These NPDES approved States were required to obtain approved State pretreatment programs by either March 27, 1979 or 1980. - To date, only 19 states have obtained approval. The costs of State pretreatment programs range from $50,000 to $800,000 per year, depending on the industrialization, capabilities and responsiveness of the POTWs, and the State program approach. EPA should substantially increase the funding available to States for pretreatment, using » * §§106, 205(g), and 205{j) monies, which currently provide negligible funding for State pretreatment programs. The State programs should be encouraged to use a portion of their §205(g) funding to cover the costs of implementing an approved pretreatment program, provided the State has the Construction Grants Program delegation and the NPDES permit program approval. This should serve as an incentive ------- - 23 - to State program development and implementation, "especially during the critical years FY 1985 and FY 1986. EPA should require States receiving funds for pretreatment to make specific commitments on the use of the funds, and should hold States accountable for those commitments. 4) POTW Programs EPA should make available federal funds for a one-time 50-50 matching grant of up to $2,500 per mgd to POTWs for necessary capital investments for pretreatment implementation. This should be instituted quickly as a set-aside in the construc- tion grants program to serve as an incentive to POTW program initial start-up. The Task Force affirms that ongoing implementation should be financed through user fees. 5) EPA Headquarters EPA should budget for sufficient personnel to perform its pretreatment oversight functions effectively, and to provide adequate guidance and policy statements on pretreatment implementation. - - * * f - * * EPA should commit additional resources in order to -[ ; accelerate the promulgation of sludge management regula- tions as soon as possible. . . "- ------- - 24 - D. ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS EPA should spell out the roles of the respective government units responsible for pretreatment program implementation as follows: Primary authority for program implementation and enforcement shall, be the responsibility of the local agency. The EPA and/or the delegated State shall retain overview responsi- bility for ensuring proper program implementation and enforce- ment. In the event of improper program operation and compliance, the EPA and/or the delegated State shall ensure compliance. I. EPA The primary roles of the EPA are: 1) in delegated States, to provide oversight of the State program and enforcement where State action is not timely or effective; 2) in nondelegated States, to exercise all enforcement and approval responsibilities, in coordination with State and local authorities; 3) in all States, to ensure that federal guidance includes specific requirements for enforcement and programmatic actions (including specific output commitments), and to maintain accountability for achieving those commitments; and 4) to provide the best possible technical guidance to States, POTWs, and industrial users in order to ensure high quality programs and effective pollution control. ------- - 25 - II. Approval Authority (Delegated States orEPA) 1. The three primary roles of the Approval Authorities shall be as follows: a} Ensure the development and implementation of approv- able local pretreatment programs; b) Review and, if appropriate, approve removal credit applications; c) Assure compliance with the law. (i) The Approval Authority shall determine that the local program meets all requirements of the law, including §403.9(b)f and that the proposed method of implementing pre- treatment responsibilities is feasible in light of any State law or Federal law limitations on the particular POTWs authority. (ii) The Approval Authority shall take whatever measures are necessary to assure that each user subject to categorical standards is meeting the standards. ' * ' . .y ' 2. The Approval Authority should expedite compliance through a joint effort with the community serviced.by the POTW so long as such efforts are consistent with Clean Water Act requirements and deadlines and EPA or State enforcement actions. ------- - 26 - . ' 3. For all pollutants, the approved POTW shall have primary responsibility to determine how the general pretreatment requirements of §403.5{a) and (b) are met as long as the POTW meets its permit. The Approval Authority shall retain review responsibility. 4. For conventional pollutants, where the POTW fails to meet its permit because of either inadequate capacity or improper operation, the Approval Authority should generally not require POTWs to discriminate against any category of existing user which is in compliance with the general and categorical pretreatment require- ments and local limits which meet the requirements of the §403.5 General Pretreatment Standards. III. POTW 1. The POTW (or the State that is responsible for the local Pretreatment Program) shall have the following primary roles: a) Meet the NPDES permit limits (applicable only to POTWS ) ; '.-' b) Develop and implement a pretreatment program; and c) Assure compliance by all industrial dischargers. ------- _ 27 - 2. Where permit noncompliance exists, the POTW should expedite compliance through a joint effort of the community serviced by the POTW so long as such efforts are consistent with Clean Water Act requirements and deadlines and EPA or State enforcement actions. IV. EPA Coordinator To implement these recommendations effectively, the Assistant Administrator for Water needs to pull together applicable Divisions of the Agency (e.g., Effluent Guidelines, Enforcement, Permits, etc.) in order to develop a consistent program. Because of its size and complexity there is a need for the Pretreatment Program to have its own high level coordinator reporting directly to the Assistant Administrator for Water, its own identity, and its own funding; otherwise it may continue to falter and stumble without true direction. £. REGULATORY CHANGES 1) §403.3(i) Definition of Interference ' " *%. . - » **» "f-Xr. ' ' ~ ' ." " t ' ' ' In its decision of September 20, 1983; the U.S.''Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the-definition of . "interference" in §403.3(a) failed to require the causation mandated by Congress in the Clean Water Act. The court remanded the entire definition of interference to the ------- - 28 - Administrator. The recommended definition below has been written to clearly establish the required causation. In addition, the three criteria illustrating what constitutes "significant contribution" to a POTW permit violation have been dropped. It is felt by the Task Force that these criteria are neither inclusive of all possibilities nor necessarily accurate. The function of a listing of "significant contributing causes" is one of guidance. It can best be fulfilled if it is instead included in a separate guidance document, as previously recommended. The Task Force believes that the Agency needs to issue a new definition of "interference" as soon as possible. It would be useful in the development of local limits. PIRT recommends that EPA propose and promulgate as soon as possible, through rulemaking, the following definition of the term "interference": The term "interference" means an inhibition or disruption of the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal which is a cause in whole or in part of a violation of any requirement of the POTWs NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or to the prevention .of sewage sludge use or disposal by the POTW in accordance with the following statutory provisions and regula- tions or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or local regulations): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) {including title II more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and including state regulations contained in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA), the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. ------- - 29 - 2) §403.3 (n) Def i n ition of Pass-Through The Third Circuit held the §403.3(n) definition of "pass- through" to be invalid since it "was promulgated without the notice and comment required by the Administrative Procedure Act." The definition of "pass through" was remanded to the Administrator. Although the Court did not rule on the language of the definition, "pass through" does require causation as needed for "interference". The Task Force feels strongly that having a current valid definition of "pass through" is extremely important for the development of local limits. It is recommended that EPA propose and promulgate, through rulemaking, the following definition of the term "pass through": The term "pass through" means the discharge of pollutants through the POTW into navigable waters in quantities or concentrations which are a cause in whole or in part of a violation of any requirement of the POTWs NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation). 3) §403.5 Prohibited Discharges The Task Force agrees to examine the submittal of comments by D. Menno with regard to changes in §403.5 and to take these up in Phase II of PIRT's activities. , 4) §403.3(k) Definition of New Source The Third Circuit held that the Clean Water Act clearly defines sources as being new if their construction occurs after the date of proposed new source requirements. It also held that the Agency improperly established a definition of ------- - 30 - a new sources that exempted plants from being considered new sources if their construction occurred before the regulation was promulgated and the Agency failed to promulgate the standard within 120 days of its proposal. The Task Force's recommendation is written to carry out the will of the Congress. Paragraph (k) of Section 403.3 should be replaced with the following: (k) The term "new source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge, the construction of which commenced after proposal of Pretreatment Standards under section 307(c) of the Act which are applicable to such source and which meets the criteria of §403.6(c) 5) §403.6 Criteria for New Source Determinations Included in the NPDES regulations, but absent from pretreat- ment, are specific criteria for distinguishing between construction of a new source and modification of an existing source. As with a direct discharger, proper classification of an indirect discharger is important because an existing source is subject to standards based on Best'Available Technology level treatment * while a new source can be subject to more stringent standards. This distinction is based on the concept that a new facility has the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. The new source criteria are intended to ensure that all sources are properly classified. ------- - 31 - To clarify the pretreatraent regulations and to provide more consistency between the two regulations, this recommendation would incorporate most of the proposed NPDES new source criteria into pretreatment's "new source" definition. The Task Force wil continue to examine the problem of replacement facilities. Section 403.6 should be amended by adding a new paragraph (c), and redesigning the existing paragraph (c) as (d), existing paragraph (d) as (e), and existing paragraph (e) as (f). (c) Criteria for New Source Determination. (1) Except as otherwise provided in an applicable pretreatment standard for new sources, a source is a "new source" if it meets the definition of "new source" in §403.3(k), and (i) It is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or (ii) It totally replaces the process or produc- tion equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or -'- (iii) Its processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site, in deter- mining whether these processes are substantially independent, the Control Authority shall consider such factors as the extent to which the produc- tion processes of the new facility are or normally ------- - 32 - would be independent of the existing plant; and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source. (2) A source meeting the requirements of paragraph (c)(l) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this section is a new source only if a pretreatment standard for new sources is independently applicable to it. If there is no such independently applicable standard, the source is covered by applicable pretreatment standards for existing dischargers. [Separate statement - ' F. Dubrowski, T. Coxe: The word "proposed" should be inserted before the words "pretreatment standard" and "standard, the source" to clarify the intent of this paragraph.] (3) Construction of a new source as defined under §403.3(k) has commenced if the owner or operator has: (i) begun, or caused to begin, as part of a continuous onsite construction program: (A) Any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or (B) Significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation or removal of existing building, structures, or facilities which is necessary for the placement, assembly, or installa- tion of new source facilities or equipment; or ------- - 33 - (ii) Entered a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation within a reasonable time. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not constitute a contractural obligation under the paragraph, 6) Change of Ownership PIRT believes that EPA should investigate the extent to which circumvention of pretreatment requirements on the basis of changes in ownership is taking place. PIRT has identified instances where non-complying "existing sources" are transferred to new "owners" who seek further delays in complying with pretreatment standards. PIRT believes that changes in ownership should trigger immediate upgrading of the treatment systems of these facilities to comply with existing source requirements. This should be achieved before continuing or restarting a discharge. 7) §413 Electroplating Categorical Standards . '-...- "* »' Currently, the electroplating categorical standards do not set limits on the discharge of chromium, copper, nickel, or zinc from existing plants discharging under 10,000 gpd. Some of these plants, namely captives, and all new sources will be regulated for these metals by the subsequent Metal Finishing Standards. However, for these four pollutants, ------- - 34 - existing job shops discharging less than 10,000 gpd will remain unregulated, except through local limits. The limited controls on these facilities occurred because of potential heavy economic impact. Even though the flow is low from these plants, the Task Force feels that the potential magnitude of the environmental problem is great enough to require a change. PIRT recommends that EPA examine its decision in the cate- gorical standards, which exempts certain small industrial users from all categorical requirements, to determine: 1) The effectiveness of control programs established by local limits; and 2) The need for removing these exemptions once local program impacts have been assessed. 8) $403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise Pretreatment Standards; Submission for Approval A workable national pretreatment program requires that all parties have strict, yet workable, time limit requirements -to complete their specific obligations. .At present, there. is no time limit regarding the Approval Authority's deter- mination of the completeness of pretreatment program and ' *'' removal credit applications. This has led to time delays which have been detrimental to the program as a whole.-, The Task Force proposes to eliminate this gap through a change in the regulations. To expedite this change in the interim, PIRT requests that the Administrator give ------- - 35 - the Regional Administrator a sixty day limit to determine the completeness of the submission for approval. Under subsection §403.9(e), there is no time limit to trigger the Approval Authority's duty of notification and public notice. The Approval Authority should have 60 days from the date of a POTW pretreatment program or removal credit application to determine whether the submission meets the requirements of paragraph (b) and, if appropriate/ (d) of this section. By providing a 60 day limit for review of completeness, the total time from submission to approval must be within approximately 175 days. Considering that the Agency is allowed only 90 days from submission to approval for State NPDES program approval (for direct dischargers), this time limit for pretreatment is definitely reasonable. 9) §403.11 Approval Procedures for POTW Pretreatment Programs and POTW Revision of Categorical Pjretreatment Standards In subsection (b), the requirement that a public notice be issued within 5 days after making a determination that a submission meets the requirements should be changed to 20 work days, in many cases, the Approval Authority's procedures do not allow the expeditious processing necessary to comply with the 5 day limit. A 20 work day limit can be met more easily and still stays within the apparent intent of public notification right after the determination has been made. ------- - 36 - 10) §403.12 Approved Testing Het hods Over 10,000 metal finishers and electroplaters are subject to the TTO (Total Toxic Organic) requirement. Many of them are or will be required to analyze for toxic organics and report the results in their baseline monitoring reports and in their periodic compliance monitoring. Section 403.12(g) requires the use of approved analytical procedures pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Act and contained in 40 CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto (or with any other test procedure approved by the Administrator). The regulation on toxic organic analytical procedures, 40 CFR Part 136, was issued in proposed form in 1979 and has never been finalized. Greater certainty and confidence in the toxic organic results would occur if procedures were promulgated. PIRT urges that the Agency proceed to promulgate toxic organic analytical procedures by the scheduled date of August, 1984. 11) §403.12 Approved Sampling ^Techniques Section 403.12(g) requires that sampling shall be performed in accordance with sampling techniques approved by the Administrator. EPA should provide guidance on approved sampling techniques. Additionally the language .contained in 403.12(b)(5)(iii) specifies that "where feasible samples must be obtained through the flow-proportional composite A ' I. sampling techniques specified in the applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard. Where composite sampling is not feasible, a grab sample is acceptable." First, the require- ment is misleading in that categorical Pretreatment Standards ------- - 37 - do not specify required sampling techniques. This issue will be addressed by PIRT in the Phase II activities. Second, PIRT recommends that §403.12(b){5)(iii) be expanded to allow time proportional sampling where flow proportional automatic sampling is not feasible. A time proportioned sample is simply a collection of grab samples. Time proportional samples, while not as accurate as flow pro- portioned samples, are more representative of the daily discharge than the single grab sampling allowed in the existing language. 12) §403.12 Self-Monitoring vs. POTW Monitoring Some POTWs have indicated that reports submitted by some industrial users are not reliable, and in fact some users would prefer that the POTW conduct the monitoring procedures (with appropriate user charges, as needed). Current Part 403 regulations are not clear on the issue of allowing POTWs to use their own surveillance monitoring data in lieu of Baseline Monitoring Reports [403.12(b)] or self monitoring reports [403.12(e)]. The Office of the General .--,>. . * Counsel agrees that the regulations a re/.not .clear on this . point. PIRT recommends changes in the language of §403.12 to clearly allow for POTW monitoring in lieu of self- . monitoring. ". . . 13) Annual POTW Reports As an essential element in allowing either the EPA or the approved state to oversee the POTW pretreatment program, an annual POTW report is needed. ------- - 38 - Although an annual POTW report is not called for in current Part 403 regulations, different formats have been circulated around the country and many Regions and States are already requiring a report through NPDES permits. PIRT recommends that an outline for an Annual POTW report to the Approval Authority be prepared and EPA propose the outline as an amendment to Part 403. This would provide some basic uniformity among reports so that EPA can compile a national profile of the program. 14) §403.15 Net/Gross A net/gross credit allows the subtraction of the initial concentration level of pollutants in the intake water to the industrial user from the concentration level in the effluent of the industrial user. The current regulation requires that an application for net/gross be made within 60 days of the effective date of the applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard. Among the reasons against having a deadline are: a) Influent water quality can change. Therefore an industrial user previously not requiring a net/gross modification, might subsequently need it. . b) An industrial user might have to obtain its influent -water supply from a new source at some point in time, after the 60 day limit had passed. c) A plant might change certain of its processes, so that it needs net/gross, where it formerly had no need thereof. ------- - 39 - d) Net/gross determination involves additional sampling which is burdensome for industrial users to have to do, solely on the possibility that sometime in the future they might need the credit. e) Treatment technology may need to be installed before a user could satisfy the demonstrations needed to receive a credit. PIRT recommends that the date to make application for intake pollutant credits be removed and replaced with a general requirement for "timely submittal." The Agency 7 f apparently already agreed to withdraw the time limit in the preamble to the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403, January 28, 1981). " several commenters objected to the 60-day deadline for requesting a net/gross credit, noting that the consolidated permit regulations do not impose a similar constraint. These commenters pointed out that in many cases treatment technology would need to be installed before a user could satisfy the demonstrations needed to receive a credit. EPA agrees with this comment and accordingly has deleted the time limitation on applying for a net/gross credit." However, the same regulations still have the 60-day limitation. PIRT recommends that the Agency replace the 60-day time limitation with a general requirement for a "timely submittal". . - 15) §403 Appendices B, C and r Must Be Updated Appendices B (List of Toxic Pollutants), C (List of Industrial Categories Subject to Pretreatment Standards) and D (List of ------- - 40 - Selected Industrial Categories Exempted from Regulation) are out of date and should be amended. Appendix B - List of Toxic Pollutants The Agency has deleted the following three pollutants from the toxic pollutant list: Dichlorofluoromethane [50] and trichlorofluoromethane [49], 46 FR 79692 (January 8, 1981); and bis [chloromethyl] ether [17], 46 FR 10723 (February 4, 1981). The list of toxic organics in Appendix B should reflect these changes. Appendix C - List of Industrial Categories Subject to Pretreatment Standards The Agency should review the following comments and publish an accurate list in the Federal Register. 1) The names of certain categories have changed? a) "Foundries" is now "Metal Molding and Casting" b) "Mechanical Products" was combined with "Electroplating to become "Metal Finishing" V c) "Organic Chemicals Manufacturing" and "Plastics and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing have been combined to become "Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing" d) "Paint and Ink Formulating" were promulgated as two categories "paint Formulating" and "Ink Formulating" ------- - 41 - e) "Plastics Processing" is now "Plastics Molding and Forming" 2) Additional categories with specific new source requirements for pretreatment are not listed: Fertilizer Ferroalloy Glass Asbestos Paving and Roofing Carbon Black 3) It appears that some of the following categories do not have pretreatment standards and therefore should be deleted from the list: Adhesives and Sealants Auto and Other Laundries Explosives Manufacturing Gum and Wood Chemicals Photographic Equipment and Supplies . . Printing and Publishing . . Soap and Detergent Manufacturing 4) The following category is not listed but is scheduled for the development of pretreatment standards: Nonferrous Metals Forming ------- - 42 - Appendix D Certain of the subcategories listed here have not been exempted under Paragraph 8 of the NRDC v. Costle Consent Decree. For example, the following listing under Electro- plating should be totally deleted: Alkaline Cleaning Bright Dipping Chemical Machining Galvanizing Immersion Plating Iridite Dipping Pickling These operations are wastestreams which are regulated for toxic pollutants. ------- - 43 - Hinority Statemervb The undersigned municipal and State members of the Task Force urge the Administrator of EPA to investigate legislative changes to the Clean Water Act in addition to administrative changes to enhance implementation of the pretreatment program. In particular; we feel than an engineered approach local option should be made available in the Act as an alternative to dependence on National Categorical Pretreatment Standards. We whole heartedly support the national thrust of the pretreatment program to protect water quality, protect plant operations, and to prevent sludge contamination. Therefore, such an option should only be available to those POTW systems that demonstrate the competence and the will to accomplish all the other program requirements as described in 40 CFR Part 403. This means that alternative programs will be approvable if they contain local limits based on sludge contami- nation, water quality protection, and prevention of interference. Our actual experience with successful programs that have achieved the above mentioned goals of the Act, prior to issuance of the categorical pretreatment standards, has convinced us that the engineered approach local option (based on locally developed standards) is more economical for POTWs and much less of an administrative burden. This position statement in no way is meant to detract from the consensus Interim PIRT Report and we urge the Administrator to implement the report recommenda- tions as soon as possible. (J. Olson, C* Strehl, G. Kurz, K. Goldstein) ------- ------- Appendix A Guidance Priorities PIRT members individually specified the 5 most needed guidance reports. The following is a listing of the subjects most frequently designated: Rank 1 2 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 Subject Section Enforcement B 1, 3 Local Limits A 3 Combined Wastestream Formula A 9 Concentration vs. Production A 8 Based Standards Municipal Sludge Disposal A 6 State Water Quality Standards A 4 POTW Program Implementation A 10 Industrial Monitoring Frequency A 11 Roles and Relationships D ------- ------- =08*,. Appendix B UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF WATER JUN 1 i 1984 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: EPA Preliminary Assessment of the Interim Report FROM: TO: THRU: Jack E. Assistant Administrator for Water (WH-556) William D. Ruckelshaus The Administrator (A-100) Alvin L. Aim Deputy Administrator (A-101) Staff in the Office of Water, in cooperation with staff in the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring have reviewed the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT) Interim Report and prepared the attached preliminary assessment of its recommendations. The preliminary assessment needs further management review, particularly with regard to allocating the Agency's resources to the highest priority needs of the pretreatment program and setting timetables for completion of recommended actions. I am pleased, however, to report that we can respond in a very positive way to the report generally. We have already begun to act on many of the recommendations. I strongly support the continuing efforts of PIRT. I expect that their recommendations will be crucial to us in formulating future plans for the program. PIRT's highly constructive spirit is clearly reflected by the Interim Report recommendations. We look forward to completion of the second phase of PIRT's activities. Attachment ------- B-2 A 1. Suspension of the Definition of Interference EPA staff concurs with PIRT that the prohibition against interference remains enforceable. An interim statement on this should be relatively straightforward. Such a statement should be directed to EPA Regions, States and POIVte directly as well as to the general public and could be issued this summer. A 2. Determining Interference The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) is not currently developing guidance for determining interference. However, there is agreement that such guidance would be useful to POTWs. To develop guidance, the Agency would need to gather case history examples for which EPA now has little information. A 3. Local Limits Staff in the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits are currently drafting a memo to States, Regions and POTWs on local limits. A draft should be ready for internal review this summer. In the mean- time, POTW programs should conform to the requirements of 40 CFR 403 by developing local limits where they are needed to prevent inter- ference, pass-through, or sludge contamination. The computer model referred to by PIRT was developed by an EPA contractor and has been utilized successfully by the contractor across the country. The user manual for the program is in draft form and will undergo peer review this summer. Current plans call for distribution of the model through the Regional offices to in- terested cities, States, consultants and the public. Comment on the model will be welcome and appropriate changes will be incorporated. A 4. State Water Quality Standards With regard to the recommendations that EPA issue policy guidance to the Regions and States specifically describing when EPA will promul- gate water quality standards for States unwilling or unable to develop standards which address toxic substances, action has already been taken by the Agency and we do not believe that additional action is necessary. .General instructions-on. when-the. Agency would promulgate water quality standards are discussed in the Federal Register of November 8, 1983, and the Water Quality Standards Guidance Document of December 1983. In addition, a memo was sent by Jack Ravan, Assistant Administrator for the Office for Water, to all Regional Administrators on February 2, 1984, which further clarified the Agency's position on this subject. With regard to the recommendation that EPA headquarters develop a tracking system for assessing State progress in developing needed toxic standards and for sharing information nationwide, action by EPA is already underway. A draft of a new tracking system is currently being reviewed by our Regional Offices. We are also in the process of developing a Clearinghouse for information on various State actions. ------- B-3 The Agency anticipates that the new tracking system should be in place by July 1, 1984. We are in the process of developing a workplan for the Clearinghouse and no schedule has been established. Resource requirements and Office of Management and Budget approval have not yet been provided for the Clearinghouse. A 5. Local Limits Based on Effluent Toxicity Criteria There is an extensively used acute toxicity test for wastewater discharges which the Office of Research and Development intends to propose for 40 CFR Part 136 during FY'84. The Office of Research and Development has also developed and published treatability manuals for assisting industrial and municipal dischargers. Additional research is planned for FY'SS-'SG for development of protocols for treatability and toxicity reduction evaluation of waste- waters. We recognize that particular attention needs to be given to municipal sources with industrial contributions. A technical support document that begins to address these concerns is scheduled to be completed in June 1984. Workshops and training sessions will be con- ducted in August/September of 1984. Additional municipal case studies have not been scheduled but are recognized as desirable. The cost for additional case studies has not been established. A 6. Sludge Disposal Criteria The Agency recognizes the importance of sludge disposal criteria to the pretreatment program, and PIRT's recommendation is consistent with current and planned EPA programs. EPA has already issued some criteria for sludge use and disposal. Specific technical requirements exist in six EPA regulations. However, many frequently used sludge manage- ment practices are still unregulated. A 7. Notification of Solid Waste Obligations The recommendation for a handbook seems appropriate and relatively straightforward. The Office of Water will consult with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (the office responsible for solid waste disposal) to determine whether such a handbook can be developed and, if so, on what schedule, taking into account competing priorities. A 8. Categorical Standards It is permissible to use a concept of equivalent concentration for indirects where production based limits apply'if there is simultaneous consideration of flow such that the effect of the flow times the concen- tration gives the same control as if production based limits were applied. This means that flow (quantity) must also be controlled (limited) and that production data would be obtained to develop the control limits. A statement to this effect should be relatively straightforward and could probably be made available immediately. Since production-based categorical standards were promulgated only after careful consideration of economic achievability and enforceability, it ------- B-4 . . would be difficult to reopen the standards to provide a concentration based alternative. Assuming these standards could be reconsidered, EPA would also have to assure that such action did not delay compliance with the standards. Notwithstanding these concerns, EPA is sympathetic to the needs of POTWs for the most straightforward compliance monitoring methods possible and further evaluation of this recommendation is suggested. The Office of Water will review existing guidance in the pretreatment and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs to assure clear intent on categorical standards. Where appropriate, such guidance will be revised,, updated or expanded and made available to pretreatment regulatory authorities. A 9. Combined Wastestream Formula The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits agrees that further guidance is appropriate. Such guidance may be ready for issuance in a few months. It may be useful in the meantime to- refer to the categorical standards guidance document for the metal finishing/electroplating industry, which shows example -calculations using the combined wastestream formula and concentration, mass, and combination of concentration/mass limits. A 10. POTW Implementation Guidance Staff of the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits has initiated development of the guidance. Portions may be ready for issuance within a few months. PIRT review and comment, especially suggestions for priority needs in the guidance area, could be very useful. Additional funds are needed to complete some portions of the planned guidance, including the POTW pretreatment inspections module. A 11. Industrial Monitoring Frequency EPA did not specify monitoring frequencies by rule because it believes that local control authorities with first-hand knowledge and experience of their industries can best establish the frequencies. Compliance monitoring guidance now being developed will contain three commonly used procedures for establishing such frequencies. The guidance is scheduled for completion in October 1984. The recommendation is also consistent with EPA plans to develop and imple- ment a computer program to assist in' selecting monitoring frequencies. The system is intended to serve State and Regional staff who have access to EPA's central computer system. [The utility of the computer-based system for Control Authorities needs to be evaluated.] if necessary, alternative approaches could be used for providing assistance to Control Authorities. Guidance for the computer program is scheduled to be issued by the end of FY 84. A 12. Monitoring for TTO The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits staff agree that clarification of the baseline monitoring report (BMR) sampling requirements for total ------- B-5 A 12. Monitoring for TTO The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits staff agree that clarification of the baseline monitoring report (BMR) sampling requirements for total toxic organic (TTO) pollutants would be helpful. A need for clarification arises primarily because of the "certification in lieu of monitoring" provisions for TTO included in sane categorical pretreatment standards (e.g., Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433)). A 13. Pretreatment Newsletter Staff in the office of Water Enforcement and Permits agrees with the urgent need to better distribute information, and will develop options for manage- ment consideration to accomplish this. A 14. Removal Credits EPA would welcome review and Garments from members of the Task Force on the removal credits provision after the rule is promulgated. We are planning to issue guidance on the final rule. EPA will address this in the planned guidance on removal credits. A 15. Removal Credits; Multi-Plant Averaging of Removals Staff agrees that a POTW with multiple plants could determine removals for all of its facilities on a plant-by-plant basis. In addition, EPA agrees that under some conditions a POTW could use a single removal for all of its plants, based on the removal demonstrated by the least efficient plant. B 1. Enforcement Policy Statement We agree with the Task Force that a strong enforcement presence is needed. The Administrator and Deputy Administrator have already made it clear that they intend to support the pretreatment program with strong enforcement action, both in FY 1985 Operating year Guidance, in the April 13 and May 31, 1984 memorandum to the Regional Administrators and in various public statements. B 2. Enforcement Against POTWs Without Program .Applications B 2(a) The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits plans to submit a POTW pretreatment program approval status list to PIRT by July 1, 1984. B 2(b) The Agency issued a short-term POTW compliance strategy on October 28, 1983 that required EPA Regions to use enforcement action, if necessary, to assure submission of complete pretreatment programs for all POTWs in EPA control States on or before September 30, 1984. In addition, where POTWs fail to submit complete programs in accordance with administrative order schedules, judicial referral will be initiated. With respect to approved States, the Guidance for Regional Oversight of NPDES State Programs, being developed in response to the Deputy Adminis- trator's request for State "agreements" on enforcement relationships, will establish the basic requirements for approved States to plan for timely development of POTW pretreatment programs and for overview of the local and State programs, including enforcement responsibilities. ------- B-6 This guidance is being developed by OWEP, with participation by the Regions, States, and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and should be issued to the Regions by June 30, 1984. B 2(c) EpA's guidance on POIW program development and approval is widely available. Direct assistance is provided to cities wherever possible consistent with resource limitations and other priorities. B 3. Enforcement Guidance to POTWs The EPA guidance to POTWs on enforcement of industrial categorical standards is being modified to reflect the concerns of the Task Force and should be issued by July 1, 1984. This is a planned activity and will not incur additional costs. ( B 4. Submission of Baseline Reports 1) This recommendation is consistent with Agency policy and is expected to be covered explicitly in the enforcement guidance to POTWs now being developed. 2) EPA is working with States and POTWs to attempt to identify Industrial Users not in compliance with the categorical standards. Once this assess- ment is complete, it can be considered in developing budget projections for enforcement. It should be noted that under the General Pretreatment Regulations, industrial users affected by categorical standards are required to submit a compliance report 90 days after the applicable compliance deadline. EPA is currently preparing a notice to electroplaters on this requirement. These compliance reports will provide a good supplement to Baseline Monitoring Reports in assessing electroplating compliance status. B 5. Industrial Compliance Reports The Agency plans to enforce the compliance report submittal requirement and expects approved states and POIWs to do so as well. As noted in B.4, this is particularly important..for.electroplaters.. A compliance report strategy has been developed by OWEP staff. It calls for a model letter to be sent to by EPA Regions directly to the affected categorical industries or to the State or local government with the best industrial inventory information for distribution to industry. We assume that POTWs will in roost cases send the letters to their industrial users. ------- B 6, C 1, C 2, C 3. C 4, B-7 Enforcement of Program Requirements The Agency has recognized the need to identify and to take strong and immediate enforcement action against both POTWs (for not implementing or enforcing the program requirements) and Industrial Users (for not being in compliance with the categorical standards). The Aim memo of April 13 called for enforcement plans and actions by the Regions. This directive is now being carried out. The Agency is clarifying the responsibilities of approved pretreatment States with respect to enforce- ment as part of the National Guidance for Oversight of State NPDES Programs, which should be issued to the Regions by June 30. Resources - EPA Regional Offices EPA is currently examining its overall needs for pretreatment imple- mentation in FY 85 and FY 86 in the context of the Agency's FY 1986 budget process and will take into account during this process PIRT's recommendations for 150 new workyears in FY 1985 for program approvals and oversight by the Regions. The need for additional resources is clear and some increase may be possible through reprogramming. Resources - Processing Removal Credit Applications We estimate that EPA will process 150 removal credit applications during FY 85/FY 86 (50 in FY 85 and 100 in FY 86). Some increase in resources may be needed to assure that this can be done promptly and efficiently. In addition, EPA will try to provide advice and assistance as needed to approved States that must act on such applications. State Programs EPA is considering costs of administering the pretreatment program as part of the overall costs incurred by States in operating NPDES programs. In developing the FY 86 budget for State grants, we will assess whether increases in §106 and/or §205(g) funds are appropriate for this purpose. (Further study may be required of whether §205(j) monies may legally be used for this purpose.) With regard to funds available before FY 86, we endorse the PIRT recommendation to encourage States now to apply those funds to pretreatment program development and implementation. Pretreatment is one aspect of the States' NPDES permitting program for municipal dischargers and, as such, is already a targeted activity for State grants for NPDES permitting and enforcement in many States. States and EPA Regional Offices will enter into agreements on a periodic basis regarding the appropriate, specific commitments States must meet in their pretreatment programs. The following issues would need to be addressed with respect to this recommendation: ------- B-8 a) A 50-50. matching grant is inconsistent with present 75 percent federal grant funding, the 55 percent funding level effective after October 1, 1984, or a "uniform lower federal share" if the State so decides. b) A $2,500 per mgd funding level doesn't seem to have a clearly supportive basis and could conflict with current eligibilities. (See Item c below.) c) "Capital investments" is not defined in the recommendation. Is this any different than "... purchase of monitoring equipment and construction of facilities to be used by the municipal treatment works in the pretreatment program" which is currently an allowable cost under the construction grants program? (See Paragraph F.I, Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart' I.) d) The "set-aside" provisions are a concern. Under present law and regulations, up to 26.5 percent of a State's allotment must be set-aside. e) We are uncertain if a grant solely for pretreatment program pre the implementation could be awarded under the present program. This would need investigation and resolution. C 5. EPA Headquarters EPA is currently considering the resource needs of the headquarters offices as part of the overall pretreatment resource needs for FY 85-86. Resources are expected to be tight at least through FY 1985. With respect to the proposal on sludge management, present proposed timing is for State Program Regulations in late FY 85 and Sludge Disposal Criteria in late FY 86 or early FY 87. D I, II, III. Roles and Relationships In these sections PIRT has laid out its position on roles and rela- tionships. Generally EPA believes that PIRT has accurately described these roles and relationships. We would like to review their descrip- tion in more detail, and EPA will attempt to clearly delineate these roles in future guidance. - D. IV. EPA Coordinator The EPA coordinator for national pretreatment program implementation is currently the Director of the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, who reports directly to the Assistant Administrator for Water. Because various activities to support pretreatment program implementation are assigned to other offices, it may be appropriate to reinforce the role of the Director, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits as the lead program coordinator; however, some support activities will remain best assigned to other offices. (For example, promulgation of national categorical standards for pretreatment is best done as part of the overall effluent guidelines promulgation ------- B-9 effort,) Should EPA's resources for the pretreatment program increase significantly at headquarters, it may be appropriate in the future to reconsider the current organization and establish a new unit responsible exclusively for pretreatment program implementation. E 1. Interference EPA agrees that the definition of interference should be promulgated as expeditiously as possible. At present, drafting of the revised definition is underway. The suggested definition will be useful in that drafting effort. One relatively minor issue, however, is raised by it. It must be clear that the prohibition relates only to an inhibi- tion or disruption resulting from the introduction of pollutants by industrial users. (The proposed language could be taken to include inhibition or disruption by poor POIW operation and maintenance.) EPA will continue to work with PIRT on the definition. E 2. Pass Through Definition EPA agrees that the definition of pass through should be promulgated as expeditiously as possible. At present, drafting of the revised definition is underway and the PIRT reconmendation will be useful in' this regard. E 3. Prohibited Discharges To be addressed in Phase II. E 4. New SourcePgfinitipn EPA agrees that a new source definition is necessary, and is now conducting a rulemaking to promulgate such a definition. Because the court remanded the existing definition and ordered EPA to issue one consistent with the intent of the Clean Water Act, EPA will promulgate the new source definition in final form. The PIRT proposal, however, is at variance with the statutory definition in Section 306(a)(2), which adds: "if such standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with this section." E 5. New Source Criteria The Agency agrees that issuance of new source criteria in the General Pretreatment Regulations would be very helpful in making new source determinations. A rulemaking on new source criteria for direct dischargers is near completion. We plan to issue consistent criteria for the pretreat- ment program after those regulations are promulgated. E 6. Change of Ownership Any deliberate attempt to avoid the impact of the requirements of the law would be factored into a targeting decision (and into a penalty calculation) by the Control Authority. EPA will attempt to address this issue in future guidance. ------- B-10 There are presently no plans for regulatory changes in this area, if regulatory changes are deemed necessary, legal research would be required to devise appropriate language. The schedule for doing this would conform with that for certain other pretreatment regulatory changes. E 7. Section 403 Electroplating Categorical Standards Over the next several years, as the pretreatment program is implemented, information will be evaluated as to the impact of small industrial users on the treatment works and environment. In the.meantime, there is nothing to prevent individual POIWs fron requiring additional controls. With respect to several of the small industries which were exempted due to minimal discharges, plans have been made to reexamine the exemptions based upon reports from States and municipalities of interference and water quality impacts. Firm schedules will be developed as part of the planned FY 1985 studies. Funding for FY 1985 and FY 1986 is necessary to conduct initial phase of the reexamination and subsequent development of technical reports, guidance documents and/or rulemaking. E 8. Time Limits for Approval Authority Review The Office of water Enforcement and Permits will consider including this proposal in the pretreatment (40 CFR Part 403) regulation reform package in FY 85. In the interim, the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits will consider guidance to Regional Water Division Directors and approved States. It will be necessary to determine whether current resources are adequate to allow for meeting the recommended time limits. E 9. Approval Procedures for Pretreatment Programs PIRT's recommendation to allow for a longer time period to issue public notice appears both necessary and appropriate. The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits will consider including this proposal in the pretreatment (40 CFR Part 403) regulation reform package in FY85. E 10. §403.12 Approved Testing Methods This reconroendation is consistent with currently planned activities. The Part 136 rulemaking package is scheduled to be re-entered into "red border" review by June 29, 1984 and be published in the Federal Register by August 27, 1984. The Office of Management and Budget "reporting burdens" approval, will., be. necessary .for the equivalency provisions and for variances from preservation techniques and holding times requirements. / ~ E 11. Approved Sampling Techniques '".."' "^ . 1) The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits agrees that guidance is needed. Such guidance could be drafted by staff within a few months. 2) The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits will consider including this proposal in the pretreatment (40 CFR Part 403) regulation reform package for FY85. ------- B-ll E 12. S403.12 Self-Monitoring vs. POIW Monitoring EPA wishes to afford POTWs the option of performing all monitoring them- selves. We will consider this in developing the FY 85 regulatory reforms and, if possible, will address it in guidance before then. E 13. Annual POIW reports The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits will consider including this provision in the pretreatment regulatory reform package for FY85. In the meantime, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities are encouraged to establish appropriate POIW reporting requirements. There will be a need to process any final form and reporting burdens through the Office of Management and Budget for approval. E 14. Net/Gross EPA agrees that the 60-day application deadline is unnecessary. In fact, it was a technical error that such a deadline was included in the final regulations; the preamble discussion stated EPA's intent to remove the 60-day deadline restriction. EPA intends to issue several technical corrections to the General Pretreatment Regulations, and removal of the deadline from the net/gross provision will be included in these changes. E 15. Appendices B, C, and D Must Be Updated The needed corrections to Appendix B have been indicated by the Task Force and the Agency needs only to include these corrections in a Federal Itegister notice. Appendix C needs further review by the Agency, but it should be a simple task to correct. Appendix D is being corrected by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards and the changes needed should be defined by June 30. ------- ------- Appendix C PIRT - Phase II Removal Credits Centralized waste treatment Combined wastestream formula integrated facilities Guidelines for permit veto power Withdrawal of NPDES approval Approval Authority Delegation for categorical determinations, PDF variance evaluation, sulfide waiver evaluation, net/gross evaluation Fundamentally Different Factor variances 50 POTW Study Exempted categorical industrial users Development and Approval of State program delegations - See 403.10(c) Revision of §403.10(g){1)(iii) to require completion of State rule- making process prior to program delegation Waste pickle liquors for POTW phosphorus removal Reporting forms ' . Sampling techniques . '' " . ' . Local option . . Relationship between removal credits, water quality, and sludge Adequacy of local limits Enforcement Resources Phase I follow-through Prohibited discharges ------- C - 2 Recommendations on possible legislative changes to Clean Water Act (1) to address issues which cannot be handled through regulatory changes, or (2) to improve the implementation of the pretreatment program Removal Credits for 301(h) applicants Data management system for determining compliance Deminimus dischargers EPA program oversight guidance Data handling assistance - computer software, formats, methods, etc. (for POTWs, States, and Regional offices) Simplification of definition of monthly average in categorical pretreatment standards Interim guidance from EPA (with State input) regarding toxicants in sludge, i.e., limits as guidelines Program integration: RCRA and pretreatment Program Effectiveness Study U.S. Environmental Protection Agenpy Library, Room 2404 PM-211-A 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 ------- ------- ------- |