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