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~RCRA•obligations, 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

-------

-------

-------