PRETREATMENT ISSUES AND
THE PUBLICS RESPONSE
AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
AND COMMENTS RECEIVED BY EPA ON
A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATION (40 CFR 403)
^ PRO^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PLANNING AND STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
SEPTEMBER 1977
-------
1
1
PRETREATMENT ISSUES
AND THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSE
An Analysis of the Public
Hearing Testimony and Com-
ments Received by EPA on a
Proposed Revision to the
General Pretreatment Regu-
lation (40 CFR 403)
September 1977
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Planning and Standards
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
This document was prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by a private contractor and
does not necessarily reflect the
views of the Agency. The document
does not imply endorsement of any
opinions expressed by the public
nor does it indicate any predis-
position by the Agency toward any
of the four pretreatment strategy
options proposed to the public as
40 CFR 403.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
MAJOR PRETREATMENT ISSUES 5
I. Degree of Federal Involvement 5
II. Adaptability of the Pretreatment Program 25
III. Basis for Pretreatment Standards 35
IV. Extent of Industry and Pollutant Coverage 53
V. Sludge Disposal and Treatment Considerations 71
VI. Meeting Statutory Compliance Deadlines 83
VII. Duplication with Existing Pretreatment or
Industrial Source Control Programs 95
VIII. Economic Impact of Pretreatment Programs 105
LOG OF LETTERS 125
-i-
-------
-1-
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ISSUES AND THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSE
Introduction. The Environmental Protection Agency (|EPAj, in
the February 2, 1977 Federal Register, proposed four alternative pre-
treatment strategies for the control of industrial wastes discharged to
municipal sewer systems. These options attempt to achieve the statutory
objectives of preventing interference and pass-through.\ They differ
primarily in terms of 1) the basis on which pretreatment standards would
be developed; 2) the degree to which EPA, the States, and local governments
would have responsibility for enforcement of the program; 3) the number
and type of pollutants and sources that would be covered by national
standards; and 4) the number of sources of each pollutant within an
industry that would be regulated by national technology-based standards.
1 To encourage public participation in the rule-making process,
EPA held public hearings\during the month of April, in the cities of San
Francisco, Boston, Washington, D.C. and Chicago. In addition, the
public was invited to submit written comment for consideration by EPA by
the (extended) May 18, 1977 deadline. EPA noted that the publication
of the four strategy options did not preclude interested parties from
offering a modification of one option or a combination of two or more
options for consideration.
iThe following analysis of public comment is based on the
transcripts of the four public hearings and the 374 letters received to
dateA A log of these letters is attached.
-------
-2-
Major Pretreatment_Pjrograni Ijssu_es.
In developing the analysis, the above documents were carefully
studied, and the comments were categorized into eight major issues. Key
elements were identified which highlighted each of the major issues. The
eight major issues are briefly summarized below:
Degree of Federal Involvement. Essentially two approaches
exist for implementation of enforcement programs, (a) maximum (i.e., direct
Federal) involvement, and (b) minimum (i.e., indirect) Federal involvement.
Adaptability of the Pretreatment Program. In developing the
pretreatment program, it was deemed necessary to include variance provisions
to compensate for the extreme variability exhibited by POTW's in the removal
of industrial pollutants to avoid the construction of redundant facilities
by industry, and the problems resulting from such an approach.
Basis for Pretreatment Standards. This issue focuses on the
flexibility of pretreatment standards to adjust to local variations. Two
types of standards have been proposed, (a) national technology-based stan-
dards; and (b) water quality-based standards.
The type of unit in which the standards would be expressed—mass-
based limits or concentration-based limits—was also a matter of consid-
eration.
The Extent of Industrial and Pollutant Coverage. This issue
is inextricably related to the other pretreatment issues, i.e., degree
of Federal involvement, type of standards, variances, duplication, and
also involves the fulfillment, by EPA, of the Consent Decree signed
in June, 1976 by the Agency, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
the Environmental Defense Fund (EOF), and the Citizens for a Better
Environment. Six factors have been identified that directly relate to
the expressed viewpoints on industrial and pollutant coverage:
-------
-3-
a) the demand for broad industry and pollutant coverage;
b) the demand for limited industry and pollutant coverage;
c) compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree;
d) the form of coverage: uniform standards or guidelines;
e) technical feasibility of industry achieving standards;
and
f) categorization of pollutants and industry for regulatory
purposes.
Sludge Disposal and Treatment Considerations. The type and
quantity of industrial discharges and the degree to which industrial
pretreatment is practiced will directly influence the character of a
POTW's sludge. Where industrial pretreatment is not practiced, or where
a POTW is issued a variance, toxic pollutants will be absorbed into, and
contaminate the POTW's sludge, thereby limiting the POTW's sludge disposal
alternatives.
The resolution of the sludge disposal issue is also contingent
on how the recently enacted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 will eventually relate to the finalized pretreatment regulations
and the ultimate requirements for sludge disposal.
Meeting Statutory Compliance Deadlines. This issue centers on
the problems of attaining compliance with the proposed pretreatment pro-
gram and how the as-yet unpromulgated standards will cause delay in the
attainment of the July 1, 1977 and July, 1983, water quality goals and
technology control requirements.
Duplication With Existing Pretreatment or Industrial Source
Control Programs. A major concern expressed in the comment received is
that the proposed regulations would cause duplication of facilities
-------
-4-
and conflict with the efforts of existing pretreatment and industrial source
control programs. Also recommended for consideration by EPA in determining
pretreatment requirements were regulatory and enforcement conflicts, dis-
regard of industrial POTW's, and the additional financial burdens to be
imposed.
Economic Impact of Pretreatment Programs. Concern was expressed
by municipalities required to design and implement pretreatment programs,
and by the industrial dischargers who must absorb pretreatment costs, that
EPA had not adequately assessed the economic or energy impacts of the proposed
pretreatment program.
A detailed analysis of the major issues is contained on the
following pages.
-------
-5-
l- DEGREE OF FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
Under the statutory mandate of PL 92-500, the Federal
government must assume through the ministrations of the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), the overall responsibility for
compliance with pretreatment requirements through an enforcement
program. The degree to which this Federal involvement should be
exercised has received considerable attention at the four pre-
treatment public hearings and in the written comments received by
EPA on this issue.
Essentially, there exist two approaches for implementing
enforcement programs. The Act enables direct Federal enforcement,
but also strongly encourages State and local efforts that minimize
Federal involvement. Thus, the two choices for enforcement programs
are:
1) maximum (i.e., direct) Federal involvement and
2) maximum State/local (i.e., indirect Federal) involve-
ment
Under a direct Federal enforcement program, EPA and NPDES States
would continuously enforce directly against industry (notify in-
direct dischargers, perform compliance reviews and monitoring,
enforce significant violations, etc.). Under an indirect enforce-
ment program, the major responsibility for achieving compliance
would be placed on local and other State authorities. In this case
-------
-6-
the local/State authorities would notify all indirect discharges,
perform compliance reviews and monitoring, and enforce the stan-
dards. EPA and the NPDES States would back-up local enforcement
efforts only where requested or needed.
Comments supportive of both the direct Federal enforce-
ment program and the State/local enforcement programs are docu-
mented on the following pages:
-------
-7-
A. Comments Supporting Maximum Federal Involvement and Enforcement
1 . The Federal government is the strongest enforcing authority for
obtaining industrial compliance with the pretreatment program
due to the capability of its varied technical staff and eco-
nomic resources.
Dr. Gaytha A. Langlois, Clean Air Committee, Ecology Action
for Rhode Island, statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"...it should be noted that local enforcement, or
even State enforcement procedures in some cases are often
inadequate, either through deliberate negligence, or
because of insufficient personnel or by particular
administrative decision patterns."
John G. Costello, Executive Director, Bergen County Sewer
Authority, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Without strong Federal backup available, most
local agencies could simply not afford the financial
impact of an effective pretreatment program. Partici-
pation by EPA and NPDES States in enforcement actions
should be more prominent than those of local authority in
order to increase the deterrence value of the actions and
to precipitate rapid and uniform resolutions of legal
issues of national environmental importance."
William E. Muno, U.S. EPA Enforcement Division, Washington,
D.C.:
"One reservation with local enforcement is that
those closest to a problem are usually the most reluctant
to take enforcement actions."
Roger Sinclair, Director of Public Works, Cottage Grove,
OR,Statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"The enforcement has to be on a Federal-State level.
We have had local level control for years, and this is
why the East River used to burn. And it just can't be
done. It can't be done in our State. I know that."
Frank Dryden, Head Technical Services Department, Sanitation
District of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA, Statement at San
Francisco Public Hearing:
"...there is obviously a concern that the EPA would
be considered remiss if it does not oversee every step
that a local agency takes in establishing and carrying
out a pretreatment program."
-------
-8-
I.M. Rice, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
Dallas, TX, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"While we recommend a high degree of local control,
we realize that the Federal government must have undis-
puted authority to impose nationally uniform standards on
some substances, whose effects are especially destruc-
tive, and so our proposal is based on three observations."
Thomas R. Glenn, Director and Chief Engineer, Interstate
Sanitation Commission, CN, Statement at Washington, D.C.
Public Hearing:
"The strategy for pretreatment source control should
put the regulatory authority and implementation at the
State or the Federal and state level. Public Law 92-500
mandates that there are to be Federal standards. That is
from Section 307.
"In general, it contemplates that regulation and
enforcement pursuant to such standards be either Federal
or State, with Federal action held in reserve. The
latter approach is preferable because it is possible to
utilize State and interstate agency resources more effec-
tively, and because it makes more practicable some treat-
ment of variation in the programs to meet differences in
regional conditions."
Roy E. Martin, National Fisheries Insitute, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.:
"The other options (I, II, III) leave too much to
the control of local enforcement and management. These
local situations are subject to too many variables, i.e.:
budgets, personnel, local politics, etc. Our resources
have been subjected to this later scheme of management
and reasoning for too long with resultant disastrous
consequences for seafood."
2. Federal enforcement eliminates "pressures" that could be exerted
against a municipality by an industry to establish a local
compliance program or to ease enforcement of a standard.
Dr. Gaytha A. Langlois, Clean Air Committee, Ecology Action
for Rhode Island, statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"...these (local) governments are particularly
vulnerable to economic and political pressures, and often
show little continuity of personnel over time."
H. Clay Kellogg, Jr., General Manager, Kellogg Supply, Inc.,
California:
"...(local governments) do not need local pressures
from self-interest groups always trying to get special
favors. Keep the authority at the federal or state
level."
-------
-9-
Robert H. Kelly, Forest Preserve District of DuPage County,
Lombard, IL:
"Other options apparently leave too much to
local control- and local indecision, confusion, instability,
and so on. Even the state can easily back down from
pressures."
Roger Sinclair, Director of Public Works, Cottage Grove, OR,
Statement at San Francisco Public hearing:
"Local agencies are very, extremely vulnerable to
political and social pressures from the local industries.
We have local industries, and I feel that pressure. And
even states, if they are not backed by EPA, they are
subject to regional industrial organizations, and even
the legislatures sometimes lean on the state agencies."
John Saucier, Director, Tennessee, Div. of Water Quality
Control, Nashville, TN, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public
Hearing:
"...one of the problems that we see with the pretreat-
ment standards is that in some particular small towns,
industry has enough local clout, that they can get whatever
ordinance they want passed. And this is where the state
and federal government has got to insist that strong
enough ordinances are passed that they will protect the
POTW, as well as the effluent standards."
Larry E. Crane, Executive Director, Iowa Dept. of Environmental
Quality, Des Moines, IA:
"...Many cities may not wish to have the responsibility
for setting standards due to unreasonable pressures from
local industry. Basically cities prefer to have state or
federal requirements to follow when dealing with local
industry. This is especially true of smaller cities that
may not have large technical, legal, or administrative
staffs. Many small cities have an industry that provides
such a large part of local employment that it is unreasonable
to expect the city to take firm enforcement action."
Ethyle R. Blcok, Co-Chairman, Clean Water Committee, Fort
Wayne Chap., Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., Ft. Wayne,
IN:
"Local enforcement program as supplementary. This
is important as they know their community's industries
and functions. However, local government is often lax
about "hurting" industry for fear of the industries
moving out of town, and as a result the public often gets
"stuck" with paying part of industry's bill. Municipalities
can not play favorites if this is a nationwide requirement."
-------
-10-
S.W. Kitzazaki, General Manager, Oconomowoc Electroplating
Co., Inc., Ashippun, WI:
"To allow local programs to establish pretreatment
standards would not be as effective or uniform. We must
remember that POTW's have a vested interest in the commu-
nity they serve and may bias or delay pretreatment stand-
ards."
Richard W. Klippel, Chairman, Industrial Waste Committee, New
York Water Pollution Control Assoc.:
"The entire pretreatment program including all of
the steps and/or priorities can only be accomplished if
it is accompanied by fair and efficient enforcement. In
the past, efforts, at enforcement at the local level have
met with mixed success. Lack of enforcement has most
often occurred in localities which are economically
dependent on a small number of primary industries. In
such localities, the economic pressure executed by the
few primary industries has often delayed and in some
cases totally defeated any and all efforts of an enforcement
nature."
J. Taylor Banks, et. al., Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Washington, D.C.:
"...EPA states that variances from national pretreat-
ment standards based on POTW removal capability may be
more or less stringent than the national levels. The
impetus to seek variances which would relax pretreatment
standards is obvious: indirect dischargers will put
tremendous pressure on local authorities to obtain such
variances."
3. State and local enforcement agencies may not possess the neces-
sary legal authority and/or enabling legislation to implement and
enforce a pretreatment program (e.g., only 28 states have
assumed NPDES responsibilities). The existing enabling legis-
lation also may not extend regional enforcement authority to
those municipalities that accept industrial wastes from outside
their political jurisdiction as a part of a regional treatment
system.
John G. Costello, Executive Director, Bergen Co. Sewer Authority,
NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"It must also be recognized that many regional sewer
agencies will require state enabling legislation by all
the member municipalities to obtain the legal power
necessary for direct enforcement of pretreatment regula-
tions."
Marwan Sadat, Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pretreatment, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Trenton, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
-------
-11-
"In general, the local authorities lack the technical
status and the regulatory experience to make the proper
technical decisions in setting up standards in these
sophisticated problem areas."
John Saucier, Director, Tennessee, Div. of Water Quality
Control, Nashville, TN, Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"It is further stated that before any municipality,
authority, or treatment and collection agency can control
the waste being discharged into its system, it must first
have the power of authority to enforce such a regulation.
Contractual agreements were used in Buffalo and this
approach is a portion of the procedures recommended by
the State of Tennessee. Additionally, the Tennessee
Division of Water Quality Control believes that indirect
dishcarge permits with State and/or Federal enforcement
back up is essential to insure proper enforcement of any
pretreatment regulation."
Herbert C. McKee, Ass't. Director for Pollution Control, Health
Dept., Houston, TX, Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"While it appears that local governments can best
develop and implement pretreatment programs, some jurisdict-
ional problems are inevitable because of the multiplicity of
local governments in a given metropolitan area. State and
Federal programs can perform a useful function in obtaining
the necessary coordination and cooperation between different
units of government at the local level.
"In Harris County, approximatley (sic) two-thirds of the
people live in the City of Houston and their domestic sewage
is treated in a city-owned system. The other one-third are
served by sewer systems operated by smaller cities, or by
systems that serve suburban and rural housing in unincorporated
areas. No figures are available, but the suburban and rural
areas do not contain large concentrations of industry; it
would appear that the Houston permit system probably covers
between 75 and 90% of the industrial dishcarges to sewers
that should be covered by pretreatment discharges to sewers
that should be covered by pretreatment requirements. Never-
theless, as the entire area grow, pretreatment of some of the
discharges outside the City of Houston may be desirable.
The Texas Constitution denies legislative or ordinance-
making power to County governments, so a comprehensive pre-
treatment program developed and implemented by the Harris
County government would be difficult to achieve. State and
Federal programs could be of considerable assistance here
in devising ways whereby sewer discharges outside the City
of Houston could be covered by reasonable pretreatment stand-
ards at some future time."
-------
-12-
4. Limited economic resources, narrow technical and administrative
capabilities, and small staffs are likely to preclude the successful
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of pretreatment regu-
lations in municipalities, unless extensive assistance and support
through guidance documents is provided by EPA, especially in
smaller municipalities.
The Metropolitan District, Hartford, CN, Statement at Boston
Public Hearing:
"To establish the organization needed with the type
of properly trained employees desirable would impose a
serious hardship on a small town. And to suggest it be
repeated for every town which has treatment plants seem
folly when considering the duplication of effort and
administration needed to accomplish this. Even if the
review were done by private engineers or the review and
inspection done this way the public organization needed
to handle these programs at the local level seem still to
be unjustified."
William A. Healy, Executive Director, Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission, Prescott Park, Concord, NH:
"The proposed regulations would seem to be more
appropriate to large communities which are more likely to
have the resources necessary to implement the type of
pretreatment program contemplated by EPA. Once again,
this is clearly an attempt to apply national standards in
an area which has numerous variables and would more
properly be dealt with on a case-by-case basis within the
broad framework of generalized Federal-State guidelines."
Walter A. Lyon, Director, Bureau of Water Quality Management,
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA:
"...There needs to be some guidance for munici-
palities to allow them to establish pretreatment limits
on a case by case basis. This guidance would not be in
terms of a nationwide industrial standard of pretreatment
but rather a description of the treatment processes
available for the various industries and the degree of
pollutant removal various treatment processes can achieve.
For example, the pretreatment guidelines could for each
of the industries of interest define the treatment system
necessary to remove 50% of the pollutants, 75% of the
pollutants, 90% of the pollutants, and 100% of the pollu-
tants. Then, based on the individual situation at the
publicly owned treatment works, the necessary degree of
treatment could be established and effluent requirements
be set for each industrial discharger to the treatment
works. This would give the treatment plant operator the
flexibility to develop a pretreatment program to fit its
specific needs. The difficulty is that most small muni-
cipalities do not have the technical capability nor the
money to obtain the capability to develop the pretreat-
ment guidelines. The EPA could develop these guidelines
and make them available to publicly owned treatment
works."
-------
-13-
John Saucier, Director, Tennessee, Div. of Water Quality
Control, Nashville, TN, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public
Hearing:
"All options, with the exception of four, emphasize
the primacy of local enforcement programs. Based on our
experience and observation in the State, we are opposed
to this concept for enforcement. For the most part, it
is believed that these industries contributing signifi-
cant amounts of incompatible pollutants will have to be
forced to pretreat, in that local agencies will not be
able to cope with the monitoring and enforcement require-
ments, in addition to the legal, technical type request
for variances and exclusions...
"I think technical assistance is needed at all
levels, but much greater with the small municipality. A
number of the large municipalities have technical staff
that are capable of doing that, although we have worked
even with the large municipalities in our State, and
provided them technical assistance, as well as the Region
4 EPA has worked with them. And so, yes, technical
assistance is needed in developing their guidelines, the
ordinances or whatever they control the pretreatment
with."
Robert O'Dette, Environmental Engineer, Nashville, TN, State-
ment at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"Well, I think for most of the large municipalities,
they are capable of doing this. I think when it gets to
a smaller community, like metropolitan Nashville, cer-
tainly it is capable of handling its own system. Smaller
systems, like Portland, Athens (Tennessee), they may be
able to handle some of the problems, the monitoring and
this type of thing, but I think the guidance, the help
with ordinance evaluation, variance requests and evalu-
ating all the data that they could be bombarded with, is
going to have to go through the State, and with guidance
coming to the States from the Federal government."
Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner, New York State Dept. of Envir-
onmental Conservation, Albany, NY:
"Discussions with municipal representatives throughout
the State indicate that many of the smaller local systems
have neither the desire nor resources to cope with a pre-
treatment program to the extent envisioned in the proposed
regulations. In these situations a local pretreatment
program will not achieve its objective and will be wasteful
in terms of financial and manpower resources. The use of
State/EPA personnel conversant with the program will more
effectively utilize limited technical resources in these
situations. The incapability or lack of desire of small,
local government units to implement a pretreatment program,
-------
-14-
however, must be accepted as real and should not be used
as a reason for denying certain incentives or variances
proposed in the regulations. Aspects of the program
dealing with local communities must be simplified, clearly
presented, yet be flexible enough to allow local partici-
pation where desired. Small communities can least assume
the impact of possible industry dislocation. Possible
loss of variances, based on an administrative decision
triggered by the inability to cope with a pretreatment
program, places a double burden on small communities."
Glen H. Fuller, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Water
Quality Division, Olympia, WA:
"We believe the major hurdle to the pretreatment
program will be to convince those medium-sized cities
with significant industry to undertake the program. This
problem should be kept uppermost in mind as deliberations
continue. In Washington, we have two cities in the 100-
200,000 range which we believe should have such a program,
but the remaining cities are smaller and at most have
only a handful of industrial dischargers. We believe
that the majority of these smaller cities do not have
the resources, nor capability, to do a proper job, and
the present situation wherein our state agency issues
permits to the indirect dischargers is the best solution.
"We would hope a proper mix of incentives will be
available to insure that the medium-sized cities (100,000-
200,000) do opt for the program, whereas, at the same
time, the smaller cities are not penalized for not doing
the program, a role they are not well equipped to do."
B. Comments Supporting Maximum State/Local Government Involvement and
Enforcement.
1. State/local governments have the most flexibility and sensitivity
in dealing with local problems, and are the most familiar with
local water quality conditions.
Stephen M. Schwartz, Manager of Environmental Engineering for
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.:
"Unquestionably, the local agency knows of its own
problems on a day to day basis regarding sewer system
problems, treatment plant operational difficulties,
quality of the receiving stream, weather consideration,
etc...Being in relatively close physical proximity to the
POTW, meetings and conferences can be scheduled with a
minimum of inconvenience and loss of time. If industry,
discharging to a POTW, were to be administered by Federal
or even State agencies, this would significantly increase
the existing work load of those agencies or require
additional funding, or both. Local agencies are already
equipped to deal with their contributing industries. If
they are not so equipped, State agencies would still find
-------
-15-
it much simpler to upgrade a local POTW's enforcement
system, than to upgrade a myriad of industrial discharges."
Alvin G. Keene, Superintendent of The Scarborough Sanitary
District, ME:
"...local enforcement of those (Federal) standards
wherever a local enforcement program is approved, backed
up by Federal or State enforcement when necessary, but
with a provision allowing publicly-owned sewage treatment
plants to develop and enforce locally-derived pretreat-
ment limits in place of the Federal standards, in cases
where the receiving waterway already meets in-stream
water quality standards."
"They feel this will provide needed Federal involve-
ment in standards development, but will preserve the
local communities' role in administering rules and regu-
lations as well as providing an opportunity for local
standards when deemed advisable by special conditions or
needs."
Richard Wooley of the Metal Finishing Association of Southern
California, Statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"Local authorities should have the primary respon-
sibility for ensuring compliance with local and federal
standards,as provided in Options I through III. Local
authorities are most knowledgeable concerning the prob-
lems in their areas and have the most immediate stake in
the success of the pretreatment program. This is consis-
tent with the policy of the Act to preserve the primary
responsibilities of State and local authorities to
regulate water pollution."
Robert Ruddock, Director of Metropolitan Affairs, Great Boston
Chamber of Commerce, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"But, we believe that the local control option
provides the greatest degree of flexibility, avoid unfair
and inequitable treatment for overly broad regulations
and enforcement actions."
Gordon Nelson, Massachusettes Public Interest Research Group,
Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Since the aim of the pretreatment standards is to
protect the integrity of our municipal treatment faci-
lities, it is reasonable to assume that the municipa-
lities themselves are more intrinsically concerned with
the enforcement of these standards. It is the local
municipality that has to deal with the detriment that
water pollution causes to our local waterways. Let's
give them the power to control it at its source.
-------
-16-
2. State/local governments have established a more intimate working
relationship with industry which allows the greatest intercommuni-
cation in solving problems.
Don E. Salzman, Office of the City Clerk, The City of Melrose,
MM:
"With this option (Option II with part of Option III)
you would be putting the enforcement on a local level.
It is the local people who deal directly with each indus-
try on a day-to-day basis. I feel that the industries
being dealt with would feel that they have some say so in
helping control their waste discharges."
"The industries in our particular municipality have
been very cooperative. We have gone in explained what we
would like to do and then worked together with them to
achieve our goals. It has been very effective for us."
"The way things are now, most of the industries
are dealt with on a Federal level. They receive a letter
stating what should be done, but then they never see a
Federal representative. Some of the time they really
don't understand what is expected of them. If this
situation would be dealt with on a local level they would
have someone right there to help them and answer ques-
tions about the requirements."
Stephen M. Schwartz, Manager of Environmental Engineering for
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.:
"Unquestionably, the local agency knows of its own
problems on a day-to-day basis regarding sewer system
problems, treatment plant operational difficulties,
quality of the receiving stream, weather consideration,
etc...Being in a relatively close physical proximity to
the POTW, meetings and conferences can be scheduled with
a minimum of inconvenience and loss of time."
Rohn and Haas Tennessee Incorporated, Knoxville, TN:
"Our greatest concern is that many plants within
each industry group may ultimately be required to pre-
treat for the sake of meeting a nationally developed
effluent standard rather than meet local conditions
necessary to protect publicly owned treatment works.
Rational standards which balance effluent limitation with
requirements of the receiving facility must be established."
"We cannot stress too strongly that we feel useful
limits can be determined most efficiently and effectively
by administration at the local and state level. It is
virtually impossible for EPA regional offices to be
familiar with and properly evaluate prevailing conditions
at thousands of locations across the country. Establish-
ment of a working relationship between the people actu-
ally involved offers the best hope of accomplishing the
desired goals in the shortest possible time. Local and
-------
-17-
"The local ordinances developed in accordance
with a Federally approved compliance program, would allot
the necessary enforcement capabilities to concerned local
officials. Thus, there need not be any loss in effec-
tiveness from local enforcement, yet it holds promise of
an increase in efficiency."
C.J. Buschkill, Manufacturing Engineer, George Koch and Sons,
Inc., Evansville, IN:
"I would wholly support the major responsibility of
achieving compliance by authority at the local level.
Bureaucracy, when put to the test, can't respond to the
flexibility required in this realm."
"A very small plater or other business requiring
waste water treatment might be able to survive if it were
allowed to pay a surcharge to the local treatment faci-
lity to correct its deficiencies. This procedure, placed
within the judgment of a local governing body, could
respond to individual probabilities. The State and
certainly the Federal level could never be adaptable to
the flexibility required for this possible approach."
Robert Canham, Executive Secretary, Water Pollution Control
Federation, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"A major limitation of all Federal programs in the
water pollution control area centers around the remote-
ness of the control and the inherent reliance upon
written directive from Washington.
"To a large degree, the avoidance of local control
relates to concern for competence and trust-worthiness
but, regardless to what extent this concern has been
justified in the past, local support and initiative
remain critical to effective water pollution control."
William H. Busch, Manager, Permit Section, Div. of Water
Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Springfield, IL:
"Implementation of the pretreatment control program
must be at the publicly owned treatment works operating
agency level. It is unrealistic to expect the Federal or
State NPDES Agencies to ever have adequate resources to
directly regulate industrial dischargers into public
sewer systems as well as manage a Direct Discharger NPDES
Program. Federal and State NPDES Agencies are too far
removed from local sewer system control problems to be
able to regulate and ,work with each and every toxic and
incompatible waste discharger into a public system."
-------
-18-
State authorities are best able to provide this "talking"
relationship, and Federal function should be limited to
providing this "talking" relationship, and Federal
function should be limited to providing backing as needed."
Marwan Sadat, Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pretreatment, New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Local governments and authorities are much more
knowledgeable of the local conditions and of the indus-
tries which discharge into their systems. Sewerage
treatment plant personnel have developed lines of com-
munication with industrial dishcargers and are aware of
their peculiarities, characteristics and seasonal variation.
"We feel that any pretreatment strategy must include
the local authority. Their exclusion would almost auto-
matically insure the failure of an industrial pretreat-
ment program."
Howard Verges, Vice President-Engineering, Banquet Foods
Corporation, St. Louis, MO:
"We believe that the standards, if there must be
standards, should be established by the EPA and enforced
by local authorities. The results would be more thorough
research, more reasonable standards, and certainly more
consistency in the program throughout the country. Local
control over standards would subject industry to the
whims and fantasies of changing administrations and the
lack of consistency under which multi-plant industries
could establish corporate-wide programs for treating
wastes."
E.L. Powers, Mobay Chemical Corp., Pittsburgh, PA:
"It has been our general experience that local agencies
working directly with small manufacturing or production fa-
cilities has resulted in relatively beneficial and mutual
success."
James B. Bewley, Superintendent-Water Quality Control, South
Bayside System Authority, San Carlos, CA:
"...any federal program compatible with the necessary
and possibly ongoing local programs. Cordial dialogue be-
tween industry and local regulatory agencies is difficult
to establish and must not be jeopardized by conflicting
requirements or duplicated administrative loads. Local
enforcement of federal and local requirements would lessen
the likelihood of disrupting progress that is now being
made."
-------
-19-
Kenneth A. Fenner, Counsel, Masonite Corp., Chicago, IL:
"We recommend the Agency propose a program that is
predicated on local development of requirements to meet
local conditions as reflected in the POTW's NPDES permit
as the logical and most equitable way to implement a
pretreatment program. Such a program would allow indus-
trial dischargers and municipal or regional authorities
to initiate negotiation of necessary agreements now.
These agreements must be made eventually; therefore, such
a program should be preferable to one that holds this off
until after extensive rulemaking is completed,
"Secondly, we feel that a program rigorously committed
to local initiative will be more effective than one
directed by agencies located away from affected areas.
The FWPCA by virtue of its delegations to local state and
regional authorities recognizes the folly of attempting
to treat the entire nation as a homogeneous unit. The
NPDES permit program and implementing regulations have
practically demonstrated this by attempting for example,
to impose standards totally unsuited to the various
climates and geographic regions of the country..."
Herbert C. McKee, Ass't. Director for Pollution Control,
Health Dept., Houston, TX, Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"The results of the Houston program suggest that
local governments should have the dominant role, both in
establishing pretreatment requirements and in implementing
a control'-program. Perhaps some provincialism is evident
in'jthia statement, as well as some degree of pride in
past accomplishments. Nevertheless, many options were
considered before the Houston program was initiated,
including the option of sitting back and waiting for
state or federal action to solve the problem. However,
it is difficult to imagine a federal agency with headquarters
in Washington, D.C. trying to understand and control a
back yard machine shop, a local research laboratory that
is the only one of its kind in the world, or a small
four-man shop that repairs automobile radiators. The
state agency with headquarters in the state capitol is
also far removed from these local operations. However,
the city government contacts these people frequently to
repair their stopped-up sewer, to stop them from burning
trash in their back yard, to patch their streets, or to
provide other services essential to any urban community.
Extension of these activities to cover pretreatment and
control of wastewater discharges into the City sewer is
natural and logical."
-------
-20-
3. The development of local enforcement and administrative staff through
training programs would facilitate the decentralization of bureaucratic
inefficiencies and reduce implementation complexities.
Richard A. O'Hare, Manager, Environmental Conservation, Shell
Oil Company, Carson, CA:
"...we think the whole pretreatment program can be
most effectively and efficiently carried out by maxi-
mizing local control and regulation."
"...with regard to local control, we discharge some
five million gallons a day into the LA County Sanitation
District system. And I think, you will recognize that we,
as dischargers or the regulated, know best the qualifi-
cations of the regulator.
We observed that they have an experienced competent
technical administrative staff and are best equipped to
handle the control of those people who discharge to their
system. If the pretreatment program fails to fully
utilize the talent that they have by not providing for
maximum local control and regulation, it's certainly a
waste of a very valuable and useful resource."
Robert H. Brindley, Division Engineer, the Metropolitan District,
Hartford County, CN:
"Very, very briefly, the State of Connecticut has
accepted under the existing water quality programs the
complete responsibility for all of this review of - all
of this installation, overviews as well as the policing
program once the pretreatment works have been installed
in industry. It has reduced considerably our efforts at
the municipal level. And, this is really the way we feel
it should be operated...The State is doing all this work
with a single large organization at much less cost than
to try to accomplish the same program at every local
level."
H.A. Golle, Vice-President Operations, General Foods Cor-
poration, White Plains, NY:
"As we interpret Option III, we believe it stresses
a comprehensive local program and places the prime respon-
sibility for pretreatment development, control and enforce-
ment at the local level. We contend that this strategy
would allow for protection of the publicly-owned treat-
ment works facilities, the receiving waterways, and be
the most cost effective alternative for the following
reasons:
It minimizes redundancies in waste water treat-
ment
It would tend to minimize over-regulation or
pretreatment practices without due conside-
ration of cost vs. benefit.
-------
-21-
It deals at the lowest level with those pro-
viding service. Hopefully, it minimizes the
proliferation of paperwork.
It provides extensive local flexibility in that
it would more effectively deal with the varia-
bilities of publicly-owned treatment works on a
case by case basis.
It provides a more flexible atmosphere for
working out treatment problems before going
into enforcement action, and brings control
closer to the source.
Robert Miles, Director of Environmental Control UniRoyal, and
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Statement at Washington,
D.C. Public Hearing:
"Local enforcement also minimizes the burden of
paperwork. Periodic reports would only be necessary from
the industries significantly impacting the operations of
the POTW's and causing them to be in non-compliance with
their NPDES permits."
Walter Lyons, Director, Bureau of Water Quality, State of
Pennsylvania, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"Guidance to the municipalities, in the form of case
history technology transfers, seminars, training is
really very urgently needed. We need model ordinances.
We need POTW capabilities, in regards to industrial waste
removals; some papers, of course, have been published on
this subject."
It optimizes energy utilization.
"We believe that this strategy is most consistent
with the intent of the Clean Water Act Amendments of
1972."
Glen Fitzgerald, President, Alco Cad-Nickel Plating Corpo-
ration, Los Angeles, CA, Statement at San Francisco Public
Hearing:
"As an independent small business corporation in
the metal finishing industry, I am very much concerned
with the potential economic impact of the proposed gene-
ral pretreatment standard. It seems in the United States
we are constantly proposing less regulation and bureau-
cratic involvement with free enterprise, but at every
opportunity the Federal government is enacting regu-
lations to impose more layers of bureaucratic control."
-------
-22-
11 We do not need another layer of bureaucracy to
create more confusion, duplication, extraneous paperwork,
extra costs, excessive regulations and more government
involvement."
E.F. Young, Jr., Director Environmental Affairs, American Iron
and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.:
"Any type of enforcement program to be truly effec-
tive must involve the municipal agency staff, because
they live with the situation, the treatment facility and
its operation, every day. The logical program is local
control backed up by the State and Federal EPA. Such a
system gives maximum coverage. To accomplish this con-
trol with either State of Federal EPA directly would
require placing staff from the State or EPA in each
community on a full time basis."
Frank Dryden, Head, Technical Services Department, Sanitation
District of Los Angeles County, CA:
"...there is obviously a concern that the EPA would
be considered remiss if it does not oversee every step
that a local agency takes in establishing and carrying
out a pretreatment program. The answer to this dilemma
may lie in establishing a working relationship between
EPA and local agencies similar to that involved in dele-
gation of program responsibility to a state.
After a local agency has demonstrated that it has
the legal and technical capability to establish and
enforce a viable pretreatment program, the EPA should
delegate or deputize that local agency to administer in
its behalf a pretreatment program that accomplishes the
objectives contained in PL 92-500."
Theodore Garrett, Counsel, National Association of Metal
Finishers, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"The alternative (to local programs) is to arbi-
trarily impose a burden on industry without knowing
whether or not it is going to be necessary to achieve
water quality standards, just to impose this huge cost,
impose this huge administrative framework, to require
treatment for its own sake, even where it is not necessary."
Glen J. Hopkins, Deputy City Manager, Knasas City, MO:
"Municipalities cannot escape compliance with estab-
lished standards for their 'end of the pipe1 discharges.
We consider consider complex Federal pretreatment standards
an unnecessary and costly duplication of governmental
effort when a community has the confidence and necessary
resources to run its own program. We would strongly urge
a strong effort to minimize the Federal bureaucracy
wherever possible."
-------
-23-
Ralph D. Grotelueschen, Manager-Environmental Control, Deere &
Co., Moline, IL, Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"We recommend the decentralization of authority to
municipalities. This is really an organizational manage-
ment approach. And decentralization as experienced in
operating our own personal control system with the factories
is the only one that allows use of human resources effect-
ively, as well as capital resources.
"To make this effective, we believe EPA will have to
provide leadership in training and education for the
municipalities so they understand how to implement these
programs as well as they are going to have to determine
the total amount of pollution control equipment available
in this country* or manufacturing equipment available in
this country so that the proposed guidelines are within
the constraints of capability to comply."
-------
-25-
II. ADAPTABILITY OF THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM.
While PL 92-500 does not specifically provide for variations
from the promulgated pretreatment standards, it is consistent with
the Act to include variance provisions to compensate for the extreme
variability exhibited by POTW's in the removal of industrial pollu-
tants. Variability between POTW's results from the vast number of
indirect dischargers, the numerous combinations of municipal/
industrial waste treatment facilities, and the differing removal
efficiencies experienced by any given type of POTW (or even those
within given types).
The issue that variance provisions should be adaptable to
a wide variety of unique local conditions (e.g., removal capabili-
ties, types of POTWs, ambient water quality) is complicated by
problems resulting from such a flexible approach (e.g., documenta-
tion and equity problems).
Comments supportive to including variances to adapt to
local conditions and to the problems resulting from such an approach
are documented on the following pages:
A. , Comments Supporting Adaptability of the Pretreatment Program
1. The consideration of both design and incidental removal
of pollutants by a municipal POTW will result in the
least duplication of pretreatment efforts and/or pre-
treatment facilities by both government and industry.
Alan C. Van DeBoe, Superintendent of Sanitation, Quincy,
IL:
"Because Federal standards must be on a national
level, certain assumptions must be made, such as removal
percentages for a typical secondary treatment facility.
The City of Quincy suggests that there are no typical
secondary treatment plants, only many secondary treatment
-------
-26-
systems, some with high removals of pollutants and some
with low, but in the aggregate, by averaging, comprise a
typical secondary treatment system. Each treatment
system possesses an influent with a different
ratio of domestic waste to industrial waste. Further-
more, even the industrial waste portion is different for
each treatment facility because it's industrial community
is composed of a great variety of industries each with
its own particular type of waste. Since removal efficien-
cies do vary from plant to plant, the Federal standards
would, undoubtedly, be based on the lower removals and
therefore treatment facilities with higher removal effi-
ciencies would be adversely affected. Since the Federal
government cannot develop an individual standard for each
facility, it would appear again that the municipalities
would be in the best position to consider all local
conditions when developing pretreatment standards. The
U.S. EPA recognized that there are differences in removal
efficiencies from one plant to another and have proposed
a variance system. However, the variance procedure is so
complex that so much time, effort, and money would be
incurred in gaining approval of the variance that many
municipalities would not pursue this approach."
Richard R. Van Sicler, Rohm and Haas Tennessee Inc., Knoxville,
TN:
"Our greatest concern is that many plants within
each industry group may ultimately be required to pretreat
for the sake of meeting a nationally developed effluent
standard rather than meet local conditions necessary to
protect publicly-owned treatment works."
Albert C,!<€lark, Manufacturing Chemists Assoc., Washington,
D.C.:
"Variance provisions are must items for any option
adopted. Industrial contractual relationships, POTW
characteristics, unique capabilities, and fundamental
differences, as well as water quality needs, are impor-
tant factors which ought to be considered individually.
Congressional intent to encourage a vital industrial-POTW
partnership contemplated that the system's individuality
would have a prevalent role in the actual standards set
in each case."
Joseph G. Zainea, City Manager, City of Grand Rapids, MI:
"However, uniform enforcement of standards nationwide
within each category does not allow for variations between
localities. Uniformly applied standards could require
higher levels of pretreatment than is necessary to meet
local environmental goals, resulting in unnecessary
monetary expenditures or hesitation by local officials to
allocate any additional resources."
-------
-27-
Richard J. Wooley, President, Spence Electro Plating Co.,
Metal Finishing Association of S. Calif., Burbank, CA, State-
ment at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"The regulations should take into account
relevant factors, such as the removal capabilities of
well-designed POTW's achieving secondary treatment, the
size of the POTW, and the volume of the industrial dis-
charge. The latter factors are variable and thus approp-
riate subcategories will be necessary. Since particular
POTW's will achieve higher levels of removal, a variance
provision is essential to assure that pretreatment require-
ments more stringent than necessary are not imposed where
the POTW effluent meets its NPDES permit limits."
Richard O'Hare, Manager, Environmental Conservation, Shell Oil
Co., Carson, CA, Statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"First of all, the pretreatment program should
take into account differences in removal efficiency of
different POTW's. However, I notice frequently mentioned
the requirement that the POTW be fundamentally different.
I see that term used frequently, and it concerns me that
that would -- that that is intended to require some
fundamental -- some fundamental difference that we think
is important is the difference in actual removal efficiency,
be it caused by operating conditions, the volume loading
in the plant, the nature of the waste received, or in
many cases the design or whatever it might be."
"Another program -- Another problem that's
associated with a variance or credits or however you want
to handle allowances for differences in plant is that, as
I think everybody's aware, many POTW's are not going to
meet the statutory time limits or time requirements on
achieving the secondary treatment requirements. We
believe that the pretreatment standards should be based
upon an optimistic evaluation of what the POTW will
ultimately achieve by the time it does come into com-
pliance with the statutory requirements."
"And it's possible to establish those. The LA County
Sanitation District has provided us with estimates based
on pilot plant studies of what those removal efficiencies
will be. So it can be done. To do otherwise would result
in industry and ourselves installing facilities which, in
a few years or so, would not be required. I think this is
obviously an example of poor cost effectiveness."
-------
-28-
Frank Dryden, Head, Technical Services Dept., Sanitation
District of Los Angeles, Co., CA, Statement at San Francisco
Public Hearing:
"The proper approach may be different for different
municipal situations. If national standards are adopted
for these materials, then some type of local variation
should be allowed for to account for these differences."
S. Norman Keston, ASARCO, Inc., NY, NY:
"Each POTW is different in many respects, including
operating characteristics, from each other plant and no
two plants have the same mix of wastes discharged to
them, with the result that the ease or difficulty of
plant operation and the characteristics of plant wastes
vary widely. Consequently, it is essential that each
POTW operator have the maximum flexibility to determine
the quantity and characteristics of the wastes that are
compatible with that plant."
Gordon Nelson, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group,
Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"However 'incidental removal1 in biological treatment
systems must also be taken into consideration. Redundancies
in treatment must be avoided to make the pretreatment
scheme as cost-effective as possible."
Marsha Gordon, Southeastern Regional Planning Economic Develop-
ment District, Marion, MA, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"We would certainly hope that you would add variances
that would fit. We do not believe that New England is
uniform. We do not believe that Massachusetts is uniform.
We believe that water standards should play a role just
as all the industrial inputs are not uniform, all material
costs are different in New England as they are in other
areas. So are energy costs. So, we don't believe that
growth is uniform. We would like the variances."
John Saucier, Director, Tennessee, Div. of Water Quality
Control, Nashville, TN, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public
Hearing:
"Additionally, the unit operations of the POTW must
be considered. The development of Federal pretreatment
standards for industrial subcategories does not take
either one of these aspects into proper consideration.
-------
-29-
"Furthermore, regardless of what national technology
based standards are developed and/or adopted, the unit
operations and effluent standards at the POTW will have
to be considered if the intent of the Act is to be upheld."
B. Comments Noting Problems with an "Adaptable Program" Approach
1. Excessive documentation may be required of municipali-
ties in justifying variances to EPA and in complying
with monitoring-reporting procedures. As yet, the
degree of comprehensiveness of this requisite documen-
tation has not been addressed by EPA.
Frank Dryden, Head, Technical Services Department, Sani-
tation District of Los Angeles Co., Whittier, CA, Statement
at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"Any option which incorporates complicated
review and approval procedures to obtain variances
for specific constituents is doomed, in my opinion,
to founder in an administrative quagmire."
Art Vondrick, Water and Sewers Dept., Phoenix, AZ:
"Each and every needed modification of the
Federal requirements would have to be justified to
EPA. From past experience, this justification would
entail the submission of voluminous and comprehensive
reports, and long delays in obtaining approvals."
Carmen F. Guarino, Commissioner, Water Dept., Philadelphia,
PA:
"Too much of the burden of proof for the water
quality aspects is solely on the municipality.
There would be too much pressure for the EPA to
simply state that the municipality did not present
sufficient proof and, therefore, no variance would
be granted. Also, there would be too much potential
variation between Regions regarding what is sufficient
evidence for a variance. Likewise, there is too much
potential for suits and hearings regarding the
granting or the not granting of variances."
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX:
"Program requirements so onerous as to make it
very difficult for the local government to gain
program approval will defeat the purpose of the
entire program. We feel quite strongly that the
administrative requirements of the regulations must
be minimized. In particular, provisions that would
require measurable levels of local resources to
report local program activity or to justify local
program features to Federal reviewers ought to be
-------
-30-
omitted. Accordingly, we recommend that
to justify local program features to Federal re-
viewers ought to be omitted. Accordingly, we recommend
that the following paragraphs in the proposed rules
ought to be omitted: 403.10(B). 403.10(C), 403.11(B)
through 403.11(N) with appropriate modifications to
403.11(0), and 403.12."
Seymour Lubetkin, Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, Newark, NJ, Statement at Washington, D.C.
Public Hearing:
"The big problem we saw in this option (III)
was the records, red tape and reports."
John A. Tiepel, Chairman, Environmental Services Task
Force, Public Technology Inc., Washington, D.C.:
"The most common concern expressed by the M.S.
cities is that the program may become unduly burdensome
and costly due to extensive analytical and reporting
requirements. Many cities already find themselves
heavily burdened by paperwork and are reluctant to
assume more responsibilities for federally enacted
laws; this reasoning was cited by the communities
which opted for Option IV."
Gene B. Welsh, Chief-Water Protection Branch, State of
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA:
"In general, the procedures required to obtain
variances are far too complicated and time consuming
and should be greatly simplified. In addition, the
requirements proposed for municipalities to receive
authority to administer the pretreatment program are
so complex and tied up With typical EPA red tape
that we anticipate no more than ten of the 450
municipal authorities operating wastewater treatment."
Bill B. Dendy, Executive Officer, State of California,
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA:
"The volume of paper that would be generated
through implementation of the proposed regulations
is staggering. We suggest an annual summary of all
indirect dischargers to be submitted by the POTW
operator."
2. Lack of "Adaptable Variance" provisions or excess documenta-
tion to qualify for variances^would discourage municipalities
from implementing local compliance programs.
Richard 0. Wooley, President, Spencer Electro Plating
Co., Metal Finishing Assoc. of S. Calif., Burbank, CA,
Statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
-------
-31-
"Now, the problem that I have with variances is I
read and reread that Federal Register, and I just wonder
with the what seems to me to be a very complicated
variance procedure, how many variances would be granted,
if it might not be so time consuming and require so much
money to go through the variance procedure that very few,
in fact, would be applied for, and maybe even fewer
granted, and that this might seriously affect areas
where, in fact, a variance was warranted and justified
under water quality standards."
Carmen P. Guarino, Water Commissioner, Philadelphia, PA:
"Also, there is no real incentive for local agencies,
except pride and professionalism, to take responsibility
for local programs. 75 percent of planning and start-up
costs are not really an incentive since 25 percent of
these expenses plus the on-going expenses would have to
be borne by the local agencies. In addition, applying
and accounting for the 75 percent grant may cost almost
as much in paper work expenses. In fact, option I is
really a masochist's dream - work like 'heck1 to get
approval for a program to enforce Federal Regulations and
then, based upon experience in other matters, receive 308
letters at any time and have reports "rubber-stamped' as
being incomplete."
J.F. Cormack, Supervisor - Water Programs, Crown Zellerbach
Environmental Services, Camas, WA:
"It is essential to have the regulation administered
on a local basis. The proposed regulations are complex
and difficult to understand and I feel that many local
authorities will not be interested in the job if the
rules remain in their present form. The procedures for
variances and for developing local standards must be
simplified and the EPA must be very sure to provide
adequate assistance and guidelines for the necessary
local standard setting. The focus on close regulation of
only those industries and compounds of real importance is
encouraging and should help in simplifying the administration
of the regulation."
Robert Canham, Executive Secretary, Water Pollution Control
Federation, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"However, owing to manpower and priority constraints,
it is possible that the POTW may not submit such a detailed
variance request, and I would submit that because of the
program -- it is complicated, it is going to be difficult,
that you will that cities, maybe below 100,000 or 50,000
in population are not going to be very interested and active
-------
-32-
in picking up this program. And as a result of that, the
POTW's that are located in those municipalities could be
put at a disadvantage, through no fault of their own."
Gene B. Welsh, Chief, Water Protection Branch, Georgia State
Dept. of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA:
"We certainly prefer that the major responsibility
for industrial pretreatment lie with local governments;
however, your proposed regulations appear to serve as a
deterrent. Practically speaking, the State of Georgia and
probably most other states in the country would be faced
with administering the vast majority of the compliance
programs under any of the four strategy alternatives
proposed, since relatively few municipalities will have
the capability and the desire to administer the program
themselves."
3. An "adaptable program" approach could cause equity problems
by allowing certain municipalities to offer easier standards
than others.
Albert C. Clark, Manufacturing Chemists Assoc., Washington,
DC:
"In reviewing submittals of compliance programs by
POTW, care should be taken to reflect on overconservative
limitations, e.g., heavy-handed or one sided modes of
application of local authority. Some POTW may view the
burden of this program as resolvable only be "getting
rid" of industrial contributors. That would serve neither
Congress1 intention under section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act nor the Agency's purposes;
ultimately it would work against inequities in compliance
program design."
David DiGuiseppi, Assoc. Regional Planner, Central Mass.
Regional Planning Commission, Worcester, MA:
"Regarding the issue of local credit for incidental
removal of pollutants in secondary biological treatment
facilities and wabased standards; this agency expresses
reservation. Non-uniform pretreatment standards will tend
to concentrate.industries in those areas where relaxed
standards are available, leading to a further degradation
of water quality. Varying pretreatment standards within
an industry represents an inequitable situation, where
those industries will be at a financial disadvantage if
they discharge to a POTW with no local credit, or where
their receiving water's quality results in stringent
water quality based standards. Further, varying stand-
ards within an industry will pose a disadvantage to those
communities where no relaxed standards can be granted.
-------
-33-
Such communities will suffer by being somewhat less
attractive to wet industries, which those municipalities
may want to attract."
Albert J. Slap,National Water Committee, Sierra Club, Statement
at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"Water quality-based pretreatment standards is a
good idea, if they are more stringent than the ever,
industries will relocate on rivers and will relocate on
rivers and streams where water quality standards are
weak, and in towns where public officials are compliant."
Larry E. Crane, Executive Director, Iowa Dept. of Environmental
Quality, Des Moines, IA:
"Few Iowa municipalities have thand fiscal
resources to develop local standards. Development of
standards on a local basis would not encourage development
of uniform state or national standards. Municipalities
would be put in a position of competing with each other
to attract industry by lowering local standards. Much
the same problem would also occur in local enforcement
programs. Industry would shun those cities with tough
enforcement and standards in favor of cities with lax
enforcement or standards..."
Richard Woods, Counsel, Ocean County Sewerage Authority, Toms
River, N.J.:
"While the Authority feels there will be no signi-
ficant difference in either Options I or II, we favor the
implementation of Option I because we believe it would be
easier to develop technology-based standards for the
various pollutants in lieu of water quality standards for
the various pollutants in lieu of water quality criteria-
based standards; and Option II could conceivable provide
an economic advantage for locating industries in certain
parts of the country or states which are industrialized
and thus where the water quality criteria could be less
stringent than in other parts of the country or states."
-------
-35-
m- BASIS FOR PREIRE&1MEM STANDARDS
The issue of pretreatment standards focuses on the flexi-
bility of such standards to adjust to local conditions. However,
the statutory mandates of PL 92-500 did not specify the mechanism
to accomplish this task and as a result different types of stan-
dards have been proposed:
1) National technology-based standards,
2) Standards based on water quality considerations.
National technology-based standards would be determined
by the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the appli-
cation of the best effluent control technologies. Water quality
based standards entail establishing specific numeric limits for
pollutants that would be incorporated into a POTW's effluent per-
mit.
In addition, PL 92-500 did not specify the units in which
the national standards would be expressed. The two proposed approaches
to this problem are:
1) concentration-based limits,
2) mass-based limits.
Both approaches have distinct advantages and disadvan-
tages. Concentration-based limits are easiest to enforce, but
dilution could be a problem with some pollutants or where water
supplies are scarce, e.g. in the drought situation presently being
experienced in the western half of the U.S. Mass-based limits,
though more difficult to enforce, encourage water conservation by
industries.
-------
-36-
Both of these major issues regarding pretreatment stan-
dards were addressed at the four public hearings and in the written
comment received by EPA. Documented comments addressing these key
issues are presented in this section.
-------
-37-
A. Comments Supporting Water Quality-based Standards.
1. Water quality-based standards provide the most flexibility to
adapt to local conditions, and are the most cost-effective
approach to pretreatment.
John A. Lambie, Chief Engineer-General Manager, Ventura
Regional County Sanitation District, CA:
"Pretreatment standards should be nationally established
based on water quality concentration of substances which
are environmentally and "public health" wise safe."
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX:
"...Water quality-based standards, and by that I
mean standards that are derived from water quality
considerations and not just standards derived from
existing water quality standards, provide an opportunity
to greatly reduce the number of monitoring points, but at
the same time to effectively regulate the pollutant
emission to the environment."
Charles A. Geisler, Sanitation Engineer, Department of Public
Works, Omaha, NB:
"The arbitrary adoption of pretreatment effluent stan-
dards does not take into consideration local conditions
or water quality standards of the area."
Alan C. Van De Boe, Superintendent of Sanitation, Quincy, IL:
"The City of Quincy feels that the Federal and/or
State Environmental Protection Agencies should be con-
cerned only with the quality of the discharge from
municipal wastewater treatment facilities into the
receiving stream and should not become involved in the
individual discharges that make up the influent to the
treatment plant. After all, it is the municipal dis-
charge and not the individual discharges that directly
effect the environment of the receiving stream...
"Any pretreatment standard based on strict numeric
limits cannot address itself to local conditions and the
type and quantity of flow associated with a certain
concentration of pollutants. As an example, if numeric
limits are established, a particular industrial discharge
may be in violation even if it had a very low flow rate
and a concentration above the numeric limits."
-------
-38-
Such industry would then be required to construct
and install an expensive pretreatment system to remove a
very small quantity of pollutant simply to comply with a
numeric limit even though the concentration prior to
pretreatment is not detrimental to the municipal treat-
ment facilities. An expensive pretreatment system would
pose a hardship on most industrial dischargers. There-
fore, any standards developed should not be based on
numeric limits, but rather on water quality."
Andrew Aiken, Environmental Engineer, Narragansett Electric
Company, Providence, RI, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Strict national standards would be inflexible,
would fail to take into consideration the needs and
capabilities of the local POTW and, in many cases, would
result in treatment for treatment's sake."
Marwan Sadat, Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pretreatment, New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Trenton, NJ, Statement at Boston Public
Hearing:
"These options (I and III) would rely on the local
authorities to determine some of the industrial pre-
treatment standards. This presupposes that existing
water quality standards include limitation on industrial
pollutants, heavy metals and toxics. This, in fact, is
not the case. Many water quality standards today have no
limitations on these materials. Furthermore, the develop-
ment of water quality standards to include such substances
would require the solution of technical problems which
are, as yet, unresolved.
"In some cases, for example, the analytical tech-
niques necessary to determine the concentration levels
have not been fully evaluated. We see considerable
difficulty in the feasibility of allowing local authori-
ties to determine their own standards."
Charles J. Henry, Director, Water Pollution Control, Metro-
politan Seattle, WA:
"Pretreatment standards should be established on the
basis of cost effectiveness. Although such analyses are
recognized in the regulations, there has been an historic
tendency to establish treatment requirements on the
technical basis of capability rather than needs. Full
consideration of energy and other resource consumption,
water quality needs and economic impacts should be
strongly stressed to prevent unnecessarily restrictive
standards and treatment requirements."
-------
-39-
John Saucier, Director, Tennessee, Div. of Water Quality
Control, Nashville, TN, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public
Hearing:
"The State of Tennessee has always considered water
quality of the receiving stream when evaluating and/or
establishing discharge standards, and strongly believes
that the same basic philosophy should be followed through
in establishing pretreatment standards.
"It is important to note that the Tennessee Division
of Water Quality Control believes that water quality
standards and/or criteria are the foundation of water
pollution control. Without these standards and criteria,
there is nothing upon which to aggressively control water
pollution."
L.A. Grosmaire, Chairman, Tennessee Manufacturers Assoc.,
Nashville, TN:
"Technology based standards are least to be pre-
ferred over water quality based standards. A technology
based standard equally assigned for compliance to the
industry categories completely ignores the needs of the
receiving stream, the POTW and the effluent being sub-
jected to treatment. These standards based upon best
available technology (BAT) require in-depth technical
studies with supporting data, something which has not
been without problems in the past. Such technology would
be subject to very rapid change (Section 307 (b) 2) as
new developments were brought into the program providing
no stability for practical treatment facilities."
Ward H. Nay, Vice President for Engineering, Upjohn Co., Kala-
mazoo, MI:
"Certainly the goal of the many years of the nation's
water pollution control efforts is to maintain the appli-
cable water quality standards in each locality. Thus, we
believe that pretreatment requirements should be set only
as necessary to maintain water quality standards. For
this reason, we encourage that local agencies be given
the option of deriving and enforcing pretreatment standards
in order to meet the limitations of their discharge per-
mits. EPA, or an approved state, should administer pre-
treatment standards only when the local agency chooses
not to do so or when the discharge permit is violated.
Pollutants not inhibiting the operation of the treatment
plant, or otherwise causing violation of water quality
standards, should not be regulated by pretreatment standards
at all."
-------
-40-
B. Comments Supporting Technology-based Standards.
1. Technology-based standards provide an overall framework and
guidance to municipalities that can best achieve the goals of
PL 92-500.
Gordon Nelson, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group,
Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Water quality based standards are not coherent with
the technology based standards of the direct dischargers.
They do not encourage uniform effluent requirements for
treatment works discharging into different bodies of
water. And, most importantly, water quality based
standards do not make for maximum progress toward the
goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters, the basic goal of the Act."
Wayne A. Schmidt, Staff Ecologist, Michigan United Conser-
vation Clubs, Lansing, MI:
"MUCC supports strong waste water pretreatment
standards. We do not believe that the public shouTd
subsidize removal of industrial toxic pollutants, such as
heavy metals and halogenated hydrocarbons, at publicly-
owned treatment works (POTW). Most municipal treatment
plants in Michigan are not designed to remove such toxi-
cants and the introduction of such chemicals creates
serious problems affecting public resources."
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX:
"It would be our recommendation that technology-
based standards be developed and applied for the ex-
tremely hazardous pollutants about which there is limited
technology. These pollutants would include pesticides,
herbicides, and the various carcinogenic pollutants."
Richard W. Klippel, Chairman, Industrial Wastes Committee,
New York Water Pollution Control Assoc.:'
"Since many of the incompatible pollutants are con-
servative in nature and not subject to degredation (sic)
in the receiving waters, the use of a technology standard
has some merit, from the standpoint of protecting the
downstream user from cumulative concentrations of incom-
patible and/or cumulative pollutants.
"The use of a water quality variance would have meaning
in such a case only if the water quality of the downstream
waters were fully evaluated to assess the total effect of the
accumulation of pollutant concentrations from all direct
discharges as well as the non-point discharges.
-------
-41-
"Many of the conservative pollutants such as heavy
metals concentrate in the bottom sediments of the receiving
waters and are not visible by direct water quality measure-
ments. However, they still affect the aquatic environment.
Other conservative pollutants such as Mirex, PCB's, Kepone
and Mercury are cumulative in nature and are concentrated
in the food chain. Thus the effect of these pollutants
would not necessarily be reflected in measurement of re-
ceiving water quality.
"In light of these facts, it is doubtful if water quality
can be successfully utilized as a basis to factually determine
the level of treatment required in the immediate future.
"It is therefore recommended that technology based.
standards be utilized for conservative pollutants from in-
direct discharges, and that technology variances be granted
for municipal systems which can document removals higher than
those assumed in the regulations.
"However, since it is recognized that such complexities
preclude the use of a water quality basis for establishing
pretreatment requirements, any such regulation should a-t
the same time, preclude a state or local authority from
justifying levels of treatment higher than the technology
level on the basis of water quality for a given period of
time, i.e., 5 - 10 years, except in extreme cases where the
state or local government can offer overwhelming justification.
"In other words, each affected industry will design
treatment facilities to meet the known technology standard.
Each industry will have a stationary target to reach and
some assurance that the target level will remain stationary
for a fixed period of time.
"With a known treatment requirement, accompanied by the
assurance that the sludges and concentrates can be efficiently
and economically disposed of, we feel that industry would be
in a position to implement the requirement pretreatment facili-
ties within a rather short time span. To put it in other
words: 'with the uncertainties removed, progress can be accel-
erated. "'
A.B. Early, Environmental Action, Washington, D.C.:
"It is well known that one of the major departures of the
1972 amendments to the FWPCA from the previous law was to es-
tablish technology based standards instead of water quality
based standards, except where the latter were found to be more
stringent. The .Congress found that the data needed to estab-
lish water quality standards and to establish the relationship
-------
-42-
between such standards and individual discharges was too
complex to provide a predictable means of water pollution
control. It would be wholly inconsistent for the Congress
to have established a technology based system of control
for direct dischargers under section 301 and 304, and auth-
orize a water quality based system of control for indirect
dischargers under Section 307(b)."
Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner, New York State Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany, NY:
"The State of New York favors a State/EPA technology
based program with strong positive (non-punitive) incentives
and permissive mechanisms allowing capable local governmental
units to assume administration of a pretreatment program.
"The State of New York concurs with the proposed method-
ology for the development of national standards. The national
standards must maintain environmental equity through applica-
tion of appropriate pretreatment technology (APT). APT should
maintain a minimum overall (industry & POTW) treatment removal
equivalent to the BPCTCA limitations of an individual industry
discharge, and in the case of toxic substances, approaches or
is equivalent to BATEA. During the development of APT, con-
sideration should be given for regional and size categorization.
Significant impacts due to the implementation of the standards
may be masked by technical and economic assessments averaged
on a national scale."
Louis J. Breimhurst, Director-Div. of Water Quality, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN:
"Pretreatment standards based on water quality may not
sufficiently take into consideration inhibitory/interference
effects of a pollutant on the operation of a POTW. The con-
ditions of granting a water quality variance did not address
this major concern.
"Water quality standards are difficult to develop and more
difficult to enforce."
Glen H. Fuller, Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Water Quality
Div., Olympia, WA:
"The most important thrust of option two is that it pro-
vides for variances to allow cities to enforce limits on in-
direct dischargers based on the sewage treatment plant's ability
to meet the receiving water quality standards rather than
technology based effluent standards. We recommend against
this approach. If it were to be used, we foreseee long delays,
as studies are undertaken to ascertain whether water quality
standards are indeed violated for the many toxic pollutants.
The extremely low concentrations in question could very likely
result in uncertain conclusions."
-------
-43-
J. Taylor Banks, et.al., Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Washington, D.C.:
"The Settlement Agreement specifically provides that
the pretreatment standards shall be technology based...
FWPCA does not authorize municipalities to grant water
quality based variances from national pretreatment standards
as proposed. ..Sections 307(b) and (c) require that indirect
dischargers meet uniform standards designed to prevent
the discharge into POTWs of incompatible pollutants. In
compatibility must be determined with reference to design
assumptions regarding POTW removal capability and interference
or upset considerations, and cannot be dependent upon
receiving water quality in individual stream segments...
"Congress chose to require the development and imple-
mentation of effluent limitations and standards (including
national pretreatment standards) independent of the water
quality based restrictions contained in Section 303 of
the FWPCA precisely because it had been demonstrated
during years of experience prior to 1972 that dependence
upon a water quality approach would not achieve the
needed water cleanup. The immense practical problems
associated with relating effluent levels to receiving
water quality dictated that a technology-forcing approach
be taken. Long periods of costly and detailed infor-
mation gathering and analysis, including development and
implementation of water body modelling data, are necessary
for effective application of a water quality program."
2. Uniform Technology-based standards would provide equity between
municipalities.
Joint Municipal Authority of Wyomissing Valley, West Reading,
PA:
"Uniform standards equally applied are imperative.
Otherwise, industries will be subjected to stringent
regulations in one vicinity, while their competition may
be generating large profits due to their being located in
a vicinity where enforcement is lax. If enforcement is
not uniform, industries could be driven out of business
or forced to immigrate to areas of lax enforcement."
Carmen F. Guarino, Commissioner, Water Department, Philadelphia,
PA:
"...Strict standards regardless of sludge disposal
and effluent discharge needs...provide a degree of uni-
formity regarding competitive economics within industrial
grouping."
Eugene Booth, President, John Inglis Frozen Food, Modesto, CA:
"It seems to me that it is most important in the
food business that we have uniform standards throughout
the country on waste pretreatment since the industry is
extremely competitive and it would be unfair for any one
segment to gain advantage over another segment by this
means."
-------
-44-
C. Comments Supporting the use of mass-based limits .for the expression
of pretreatment standards.
Albert C. Clark, Manufacturing Chemists Association, Washington,
D.C.:
"Influent loadings be based on mass flow, not concen^
tration; natural dilution from infiltration, surface
washings, etc., should be recognized as fnitigating
against shocks possible from 'slug1 flow's."
Charles J. Henry, Director, Water Pollution Control, Metro-
politan Seattle, WA:
"Primarily, emphasis on use of a concentration
standard with a secondary emphasis on mass limits is not
the most ideal approach in control of hazardous materials
discharge. While the single numeric standard is easier
to enforce, it does not recognize that, in many instances,
the water quality or sludge quality may be better, more
cost effectively protected with a mass limitation sup-
ported by a more liberal concentration standard."
Marwan Sadat, Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pretreatment, New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Trenton, NJ, statement at Boston Public
Hearing:
"We would further suggest that Option I as modified
should impose not only numericals of concentration
limitation but should also provide equivalent mass units
which would be determined by the local authorities during
the development of industrial pretreatment programs and
would be subject to approval by EPA and State regulatory
agencies. This is necessary to control unregulated
expansion of pretreatment facilities in those cases where
the surface water quality is critical."
James McQuean, Regional Manager, National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Medford, MA, state-
ment at Boston Public Hearing:
"I'd like to make this one single comment that
industry is used to dealing in mass units. And, muni-
cipal treatment systems are used to dealing in concen-
tration, of materials and their influents or effluents.
"In general, when, at some point, when limits are
set for one reason or another whether it be pretreatment
of final effluent, they sit down and decide how much flow
each has, all right, and what concentration might result
to make it easy for the analysts to determine how many
-------
-45-
milligrams per liter or whatever it is in the final
effluent and he can make his test and everything is
satisfactory. And, everything is fine for a very short
period of time. Because, what happens after that con-
centration is agreed upon, something changes, a year or
two down the road. The flow changes in the plant. The
amount of materials coming from one side of town in-
creases. The amount of materials coming from the other
side of town stays the same. And, we're left with the
same concentration type limits if that's all there is in
the standards. So, I would implore the agency to con-
sider both mass and concentration. If there are certain
things that make it easy for the analysts, fine, but I
would like to have recourse on those to go back to the
mass basis."
John Saucier, Director, Tennessee, Div. of Water Quality
Control, Nashville, TN, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public
Hearing:
"The mass basis on the other hand is certainly
compatible with the philosophy of water conservation. If
the development documents concept is continued then the
question boils down to one of concentration versus mass
limits."
Richard O'Hare, Manager, Environmental Conservation, Shell Oil
Company, Carson, CA, statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"I think fundamentally we believe that mass limi-
tations are the more desirable and more fundamentally
correct, provided they take into account the variables
involved in the quantities generated in the process that
generates pollutants, and also they take into account the
factors involved in the treatment involved.
"We certainly recognize, however, that there are
some enforcement problems and control problems involved
with the mass emission concept, and we would suggest that
the local agency be permitted to use a concentration
limitation which is ultimately derived from some basic
mass limitation and that that be adaptable, then, to
changes, should there be methods of saving water that
might result in concentration increases."
-------
-46-
John D. Thomas, Chief of Industrial Wastes, Orange County
Sanitation District, Fountain Valley, CA, Statement at San
Francisco Public Hearing:
"I have a few other comments. The districts have
been into a source control program since July of 1976.
In that program, we are using mass emission rates. My
understanding, it's probably one of the few agencies in
the country that are doing that. At this point in time,
I'm very pleased with the results we are seeing on that,
especially right now with the drought the way it is.
"For instance, we have a couple of companies that
had had -- Well, we have had one company that discharged
about 30,000 gallons a day prior to our program. They
are down to 3,000 gallons a day. Granted, their con-
centrations are roughly tenfold what they were prior to
the program, but they are meeting our mass emission rates
for that particular facility."
Glen Fitzgerald, President, Alco Cad-Nickel Plating Corporation,
Los Angeles, CA, statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"I think it's also true, that eventually this concen-
tration basis will have to be interpolated in a mass
emission factor because as we go into installing treat-
ment facilities, water reduction is a primary requisite.
"And, of course, with the concentration, the minute
we start to reduce our water, our concentration levels go
up...from a strictly enforcement standpoint...concen-
tration basis...has to be the tool or the measuring
device that they (POTW's) go by. But it will have to be
interpreted or derived from a mass emission standard."
Gilbert W. Bassett, Exec. Director, Environmental Conservation
Board of the Graphic Communications Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh,
PA:
"We further suggest that, whatever standards are de-
veloped of discharges into municipal systems, they should
be stated in terms of quantities, rather than concentrations,
in order to encourage conservation of water and' to reduce
the flow to the publicly-owned treatment works, thereby
minimizing the need for costly expansion of the treatment
plant. Concentration limits tend to be unduly restrictive
insofar as they do not recognize fully the large amount of
dilution which occurs within the municipal sewer system nor
the ability of the municipal system to assimilate without
difficulty small volume discharges of relatively highly
concentrated pollutants."
-------
-47-
T.C. Payne, Vice President-Environmental Quality, International
Paper Co., Mobile, AL:
"We understand that the Agency intends to express
pretreatment limits primarily in terms of concentration,
although mass limits also may be provided where possible.
We recognize that concentration limits are preferred
because they facilitate compliance monitoring and enforcement.
In our view, however, both concentration and mass limits
should be provided in every case as alternative limitations.
We believe the industrial facility should be allowed an
opportunity to choose between compliance with concentration
or mass limits, as long as the POTW and the facility
agree.
"To fail to provide for mass limits discourages
efforts to conserve water use. Water conservation programs
are encouraged by the use of mass limitations (or reference
to base water consumption to pro-rate the allowed concentration
upward as water conservation programs reduce volume)."
H. Neal Troy, Manager-Environmental Control, Owens-Illinois,
Toledo, OH:
"Pretreatment limits expressed solely in concentration
limits, although facilitating compliance monitoring an
enforcement do not encourage water conservation, which
should be an important consideration to any water program.
Concentration limits, along with mass limits or some
other mechanism to prorate allowed concentrations upwards
as water usage decreases, should be incorporated into the
standards to encourage water conservation programs. Such
programs not only save water but extend the POTW's capacities,
and useful life, thereby, ultimately saving public funds."
Ralph D. Grotelueschen, Manager-Environmental Control, Deere
Co., Moline, IL:
"Establish mass discharge requirements as the basic unit
of control whenever possible rather than concentration
units. Three advantages that will acrrue from this concept
are:
a. Less water will be used by industry thereby conserving
water and raw materials.
b. We usually find this to be in the interest of energy
conservation.
c. This definitely will encourage the development of
inherently less polluting manufacturing processes."
-------
-48-
Glover, R.C., Manager-Waste Water and Solid Waste, Proctor &
Gamble Co., Cincinnati, OH:
"In general, for simplicity in enforcement, there
has been a strong tendency to write effluent limits in
terms of concentration rather than mass. This is unfortunate
because it is the total amount of pollutants, not their
concentration in a stream of otherwise pure water, which
is important. Concentration limits encourage wasteful
use of water and discourage proactive programs to reduce
water uses. Many POTW's which are otherwise adequate, are
hydraulically overloaded. The flow reductions which are
discouraged by concentration limits could save the taxpayers
of this country a great deal of money. Even more important
is the fact that water supplies rapidly are becoming the
critical determinant of the economic strength and growth
potential for major geographic areas, such as the West
Coast. It is critical that the agency not foster regulations
which discourage the conservation of our critical water
resources."
Thomas J. Dufficy, National Assoc. of Photographic Manufacturer's,
Inc., Harrison, NY:
"NAPM realizes that limits based on concentration
are easy to monitor. However, as more and more industries
adopt water conservation measures, numeric concentration
limits will progressively become more difficult to meet.
Average daily effluent concentrations will increase
although the pollutant loading (Ib/day) remains constant.
One easy way to calculate such a daily loading (Ib/day)
is to multiply the concentration of a composite sample
(mg/1) by the daily flow (gal/day) and a conversion
factor."
Allen R. Frisckorn, Jr., Counsel, G & E Service Corp., Washington,
DC:
" A number of areas of the United States are currently
experiencing droughts and other water shortages. In this
regard EPA should note that plants which must conserve
water might encounter problems in meeting concentration
derived discharge limits. EPA should take this fact into
account to ensure that such plants are not unfairly
penalized for circumstances beyond their control."
K.S. Watson, Director of Environmental Control, Kraft, Inc.,
Glenview, IL:
"We agree that EPA should issue detailed guidance (not
specifications) for the use of the states and local communi-
ties in implementing their programs. Such guidance should
-------
-49-
address both water quality based and technology based stand-
ards. We agree that mass limits and concentrations should
both be specified but mass limits should have the higher
priority. This is consistent with EPA's work to date on
guidelines for stream discharge.
"Today, with the need for sound water usage assuming a
position of greater importance, the adopting of mass limits
supports this thesis. Concentration limits, on the other hand,
do not thrust toward the need to soundly manage the use of
water.
"The use of concentration limits only for each type of
production operation will cause difficult and costly sampling
and analyses problems for complex multiproduct plants. On
the other hand, mass limits would require the use of only a
single sampling station on the combined discharge of the
total production facility."
W.J. Coppoc, Vice President-Environmental Protection, Texaco Inc.,
Beacon, NY:
"Technology standards must be developed on a mass discharge
basis to provide equity with an industry to account for water
reuse and effluent reduction practices. Concentration limits
(derived from mass standards and actual flow) should contain
provisions to allow adjustment for future effluent flow re-
duction. Artificial dilution to meet concentration limits
is well recognized to be prohibited."
J. Taylor Banks, et.al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
Washington, DC:
"Finally, EPA recognizes that ue of "concentration limi-
tations" could cause "dilution" problems. 42 Fed. Reg. 6481.
Unfortunately, recognition is all that EPA's proposed options
will do about this problem. EPA offers two reasons in sup-
port of its reliance on concentration limits. The first is
ease of enforcement. It makes no sense to adopt weak stand-
ards than can be easily enforced when the result will be
substantially diminished water quality. Moreover, because
the water quality benefits of the pretreatment program would
be reduced by use of effluent limits expressed as concnetrations
of pollutants, EPA has established a basis for reducing its
enforcement effort, thereby subverting the explicit reason
that EPA offered in support of relying on concentration
limits. The second reason EPA offers ...is the 'agency's
desire to implement the pretreatment program as quickly as
possible.' Again, it makes no sense to develop a pretreatment
program quickly if program quality must be sacrificed in the
process....
-------
-50-
"It is critical that total mass limitation be placed
on incompatible pollutants. Such pollutants are not only
toxic to aquatic life in significant concentrations-, but
often are bioaccumulative and persistent. Thus, while
discharges of small concentrations may avoid acute toxicity
problems, the total mass of pollutants may build up in
stream sediments over time and lead to sever health and
other environmental problems. We recommend that mass
limits be established, and that local authorities be
required to enforce such standards."
D. Comments Supporting the use of concentration-based limits for the
expression of pretreatment.standards.
Jack Barren, Department of Public Works, City of San Francisco,
CA, Statement at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"So concentration is far better for us on an enforce-
ment problem with industry. Mass emission is very, very
difficult to monitor."
Newton A. Brokaw, Executive Director, Columbus Industrial Assoc.,
Columbus, OH:
"We reccomend that POTWs be allowed to establish uniform
concentration limitations as local pretreatment standards
across industry categories, recognizing that eventual impact
upon reciving waters if the prime cdncen of a POTW and that
a pollutant will have the -same impact on a POTW and its re-
ceiving water regardless of source of origin."
John A. Lambie, Chief Engineer-General Manager, Ventura
Regional County Sanitation District, CA:
"The Pretreatment Standards should be issued on a con-
centration limit basis rather than a mass emission limit.
The problem of increased water usage by industry for
dilution of concentrated wastes must be dealt with on a
local basis rather than through a federal limit. Water
consumption surcharges and local ordinances against the
use of water for dilution are more easily administered
and effective than trying to federally modify a Pre-
treatment limit to serve water conservation purposes.
The Pretreatment limits are more easily monitored and
enforced on a concentration limit. The mass emission
limit would require tht all discharges being monitored
have accurate flow measurements as well as concentration
analysis. To attempt to enforce through litigation or
other legal means a limit based on two less than accurate
technologies would only serve to compound the problem."
-------
-51-
James B. Bewley, Superintendent-Water Quality Control, South
Bayside System Authority, San Carlos, CA:
"The problem of "how" to enforce standards also deserve
some discussion. It is generally agreed that mass emission
rates, rather than concentration, would provide the most
equitable standards within a particular industrial category.
That is, if: a) accurate production data is quickly available,
b) accurate daily flow data is available, c) a direct corre-
lation between production and pollutant loading has been
established, and d) a quick, relatively straightforward means-
of computing this information is available. It'has been
found working with individual industries, especially electro-
platers, that none of the above are normally available. The
only workable method for routine enforcement of discharge
standards is the use of concentration based standards. It
is essential that the time from collecting a sample to
reporting the compliance or non-compliance be kept as short
as possible. If mass emission standards via production
rates were used, weeks and possibly months could pass before
the status of compliance were known."
-------
-53-
IV. THE EXTENT OF INDUSTRY AND POLLUTANT COVERAGE.
The EPA is presently in the initial phases of implementation
of a new regulatory strategy in fulfillment of the requirements of
a Consent Decree signed in June, 1976, by the Agency, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EOF),
and Citizens for a Better Environment. The Consent Decree among
other requirements stipulates the promulgation of pretreatment
standards controlling for 65 toxic pollutants as discharged by 21
major industrial categories.
The proposed pretreatment regulations focus on these 65
toxic pollutants and 21 industries and vary in their degree of
coverage for each category. Several approaches call for broad
coverage of industry and pollutants. In two approaches (Options I
and II) technology-based standards would be established for these
21 Industries focusing on the 65 toxic pollutants. Another approach
(Option IV) would cover 34 to 39 industries and ore than 65 toxic
pollutants. Under yet another approach (Option III) coverage would
be narrower, limiting itself to only 13 industries and less than
the 65 toxic pollutants.
Preferences for these two categories of coverage - broad
versus limited - have been expressed at public hearings and in
written comment submitted to EPA. In addition, participants have
expressed other viewpoints and raised other issues which would
influence the extent, form, and degree of industry and pollutant
coverage to be incorporated into the final pretreatment regulations
selected for implementation.
Six issues (factors) have been identified that directly
relate to expressed viewpoints on industry and pollutant coverage:
A) The demand for broad industry and pollutant coverage;
B) The demand for limited industry and pollutant coverage;
-------
-54-
C) Compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree;
D) The form of coverage: uniform/fixed numerical standards
versus Federally-derived guidelines used on a case-by-
case basis;
E) Technical feasibility of industry achieving standards; and,
F) The categorization of pollutants and industries for
regulatory purposes.
Analysis of comments relating to industry and pollutant
coverage revealed its inextricable relationship with other pretreatment
issues - i.e., degree of Federal involvement, type of standards, vari-
ances, duplication, et.c - examined in different sections of this
evaluation. Consequently, discussion of those issues indirectly
touch upon industry and pollutant coverage. In turn, viewpoints
expressed in this section will, indirectly, have an influence on
the other pretreatment issues. However, every effort was undertaken
to make a distinction between the issues, so that the documented
comments on the following pages could avoid needless redundancy and
focus on the direct issue of pollutant and industry coverage.
A. Comments Supporting Broad Coverage
1. Broad coverage would best protect the public health and
the environment, and is consistent with the objectives
of the Act.
Gordon Nelson, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group:
"National technology based standards must be formulated
for all of the sixty-five toxic pollutants noted in the
proposals. It would not be in accordance with the goals
of the Act if the national standards covered only the
most hazardous pollutants, as is suggested in Option
III. Leaving all other incompatible pollutants to be
controlled by local authorities invites unwanted non-
uniformity in the standard setting process."
-------
-55-
Jean Anderson, Chairman, Environmental Quality Committee, League
of Women Voters of the U.S., Washington, DC:
"The League opposes limiting federal standards to only
the most hazardous pollutants from the most significant
dischargers for a number of reasons, not the least of which
is that such a procedure would disobey the mandate of Section
307(b). That section directs the Agency to promulgate pre-
treatment standards "to prevent the discharge of any pollutant
through treatment works..., which pollutant interferes with,
passes through or otherwise is incompatible with such works."
Marwan M. Sadat, Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pretreatment Division of Water Resources, New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ:
"We recommend that Option 1 (modified) expand the
list of the 21 industries which will be covered by
pretreatment standards. An important omission, which we
feel should be corrected is the development of pretreatment
standards for major medical centers, biological labor-
atories and research institutes involved in research with
carcinogens, viruses and toxic pollutants. The need to
regulate this kind of discharge is obvious. The release
of dangerous pathogenic organisms and cancer-causing
substances used in experimental research not only poses
danger to the human life but may result in the deposition
of carcinogens in bottom sediments."
2. In order to provide adequate health and environmental pro-
tection a uniform regulatory program with broad authority is
necessary.
Edward Larrabee, Superintendent, Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
Sanger, California:
"I feel that this option (option III) is no good.
In my opinion a standard of quality pretreatment should
be maintained throughout the state and/or nation."
Joseph G. Zainea, City Manager, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan:
"All wastewater pretreatment needs are not covered
by this Option, as standards for only the more hazardous
pollutants are involved. Leaving the development and
enforcement of standards for non-included pollutants to
local authorities poses two primary problems. First,
many local authorities do not have the experience or
expertise available to enable them to be aware of all
pollutants which should be controlled. Secondly, locali-
ties may be reluctant to allocate resources necessary to
control pollutants for which there is no specific mandate
by law. In short, this Option provides only partial
coverage of pollutants and would not enhance consistency
of impact of standards upon localities across the nation."
-------
-56-
Dr. Gaytha A. Langlois, Co-Chairperson, Clean Water Committee,
Ecology Action for Rhode Island:
"In Option III, it is noted that less than 21
industrial and less than 65 toxic pollutants would be
covered. This would also appear to be inadequate in
meeting federal guidelines, based on the definition of
the 65 toxic pollutants. Furthermore, permitting local
authorities to amend national standards would seem to be
unnecessarily lenient and would encourage evasion of the
standards ... since industry discharges into POTW's are
numerous and highly variable,, it is important to establish
pretreatment regulations for as many industries as possible.
The small size of a given industrial units should not
solely determine the impact of its toxic substances --
the significance of an industry to the national economy
cannot always be correlated with its impact on the environment,
e.g., the electroplating industry."
Bill B. Dendy, Executive Officer, California State Water Resources
Control Board, Sacramento, CA:
"If...EPA is only going tu establish pretreatment standards
for a limited number of industries, instead of covering the
entire spectrum, we strenously object. Such a procedure may
be cost effective from the standpoint of EPA's budget, but
to transfer responsibility for developing.the balance of the
needed technology based standards to the states or to local
agencies is not cost effective from the standpoint of overall
expenditure of tax dollars. Further, we cannot understand
why the electroplating industry is even being considered for
less attention than others on the list of 21. Were we to
prioritize the list, the electroplating industry would be
close to the top of the list as needing regulation."
Howard J. Naftzger, Kensington, CA:
"All of the materials in the list of 65 are undesirable
in the environment. (As EPA's Mr. Beck said at the San Fran-
cisco hearings, "You wouldn't want any of them on your corn-
flakes.") Where reasonable cost-effective technology exists
to substantially remove and isolate these materials, I
believe it should be used. Once removed from the waste
stream, many of these pollutants can be either recovered
and recycled or destroyed. For those hazardous substances
which must be disposed of as such, I think it .is generally
preferable that they be in concentrated form to minimize
volume."
Robert C. Niles, Director-Environmental Control, UniRoyal,
Middlebury, CN:
"We subscribe to the principle that "prohibited dis-
charge" standards similar to Section 128.131 should be es-
tablished. The 65 toxic pollutants contained in the NRDC/
EOF consent degree also need to be controlled by national
standards, regardless of source. Mechanisms need to be
-------
-57-
incorporated in the regulations that allow for additions
to the toxic list as substances are proven to significantly
be hazardous under prescribed concentrations and circum-
stances."
Stanley Dohmus, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, DC:
"Option IV would best serve fish and wildlife resource
protection."
T.H. Goodgame, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Benton Harbor, MI:
"...the discharge of toxic substances into the
environment,must be controlled. But, both regulations and
legislation must take into account the fact that the mere
removal of a toxic substance from the water does not
protect the environment, for the substance may be discharged
into the air, or onto the land. The overall control of
toxic substances should minimize the effect on the total
environment, not merely that in one medium. Regulations
for the control of toxic substances should be based upon
a systems approach. Quite simply, if the required level
of control of a toxic substance causes other more damaging
substances to be emitted into the environment, then the
level of control must be adjusted to minimize the overall
environmental effects, or to maximize environmental
quality. And, this should consider toxic conditions,
aesthetic qualities, economic effects and energy intensiveness."
B. Comments Supporting Limited Coverage
1. National numerical standards are appropriate for only
the more toxic and hazardous pollutants. The remaining
pollutants are better controlled at the local level where
the local water quality situation and the individual removal
capabilities of the POTW can be taken into consideration.
Jon S. Legallet, Legallet Tanning Company, San Francisco, CA:
"We have reviewed the alternate strategy options for
pretreatment standards and believe option III is the
best. This position is based on our belief that if the
most serious pollutants are controlled Federally, sufficient
and better regulation of the remaining pollutants can be
developed and enforced by the State Municipalities."
"It is most important for the Federal regulation to
cover only the most serious pollutants and leave the
balance of regulations to the determination of local and
state authorities."
-------
-58-
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX:
"It would be our recommendation that technology-
based standards be developed and applied for the
extremely hazardous pollutants about which there is
limited technology. These pollutants would include
pesticides, herbicides, and the various carcinogenic
pollutants. On the other hand, water quality-based
standards would be appropriate for pollutants that
are subject to wet-chemistry techniques that are
readily available in most of the affected publicly-
owned treatment works' laboratories such as chromium,
zinc, lead, and phenols."
Francis W. Kutchta, Director, Department of Public Works,
Baltimore, MD:
"We therefore request the EPA to adopt the AMSA
Pretreatment Policy as the National Standard and
that the record show that it is the official stand
of the City of Baltimore made at the public hearing
April 21, 1977 in Washington, D.C.
"AMSA Policy: EPA shall issue nationally
uniform, technology-based standards for only the
most hazardous and toxic pollutants of all those
regulated under a national pretreatment program."
David R. Small, Executive Vice President, H. Swoboda and
Son, Division of Trans-Continental Leathers, Inc., Phila-
delphia, PA:
"It is our strongly held position and that of
many others, both in our own and other industries
with whom this has been discussed, that, of the four
suggested possibilities, only Option III should be
considered. The need for standards to control dis-
charge of selected, highly toxic, pollutants is ob-
vious.
"Beyond that need, what the Federal Government
should regulate is the effluent of the POTW's.
Based on their long experience and technical competence,
the local POTW organizations know best what their
facilities can and cannot accept from their discharging
customers, to allow their facilities to meet treat-
ment standards. It should be left for those POTW's
with their intricate knowledge of local conditions
and the capacities of their systems to impose safe
and practical standards and charges on their customers.
Interposition of the Federal Regulatory presence
between these two principals is wrong and unnecessary
interference, certainly beyond the intent of the
original legislation."
-------
-59-
J.F. Cormack, Supervisor, Water Programs Environmental
Service, Crown Zellerbach, Camas, WA:
"Option III is the most preferable option since
it seeks to regulate most stringently those compounds
and sources that are most likely to cause problems.
While this option is the most preferred one, there
are certain problems. It is essential to have the
regulation administered on a local basis. The pro-
posed regulations are complex and difficult to un-
derstand and I feel that many local authorities will
not be interested in the job if the rules remain in
their present form. The procedures for variances
and for developing local standards must be simpli-
fied and the EPA must be very sure to provide adequate
assistance and guidelines for the necessary local
standard setting. The focus on close regulation of
only those industries and compounds of real importance
is encouraging and should help in simplifying the
administration of the regulation."
W.G. Turney, Bureau Chief, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources," Lansing, MI:
"The concept of local program development with
good guidance is consistent with both historic approaches
and the present climate of implementability. Strict
control of hazardous materials is the area for
strongest current emphasis and Option III offers the
best blend of these approaches."
Peter D. Hughes, Wastewater Treatment Facilities Commission,
Fitchburg, MA:
"Of the four proposals, only one seems to have
any practicality to it. That scheme involves the establish-
ment by federal authorities of maximum limits for only
the very few most toxic substances to biological treatment
or human life. All other substances would be controlled
by local authorities based on local treatment system
conditions and capabilities. This would give the necessary
backing to a municipality concerning the potentially most
toxic substances and allow the municipality to determine
the impact of other materials on their treatment facility,
while considering other impacts including economic. With
this approach, problem discharges could be addressed as
they occur without an immediate large commitment of
manpower looking at every potential problem prior to
state or federal acceptance of a given municipality's
program."
-------
-60-
Larry G. Lawson, Virginia State Water Control Board:
"...technology-based standards should only be
promulgated for toxic and hazardous materials and
should be universally applicable.
"We believe that the national pretreatment
standards for the most toxic and hazardous pollu-
tants should be promulgated with uniform concentra-
tions, regardless of the industrial category.
"In addition to these numeric limits, the stand-
ards should also identify the types of industries
which these are associated and are expected to origin-
ate."
Bruce S. Crutcher, Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce,
OH:
"Given the variety of treatment processes and the
different plant configurations in existence, the
associated variation in efficiencies and treatability,
and the varying characteristics of receiving streams,
both qualitative and quantitative, the promulgation
of national uniform numeric pretreatment standards
is deemed inadvisable except for the more significant
dischargers of more toxic pollutants. In other
words, national standards should be provided only
for the most environmentally significant toxic
pollutants and for the major sources of those pollutants.
For these "most important" -toxics, federal or state
control over variances from a national standard is
appropriate where requests for variance has been
initiated and justified by a community or its industries.
All other pretreatment regulations should remain
within the province of local regulation. National
control of non-toxic pollutants can best be achieved
by the inclusion of effluent limitations in NPDES
permits. Next best is to al'low local regulations to
prevail so long as receiving water quality standards
are met."
Mr. Rice, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
Dallas, TX:
"The coverage of pollutants. EPA issue nationally
uniform technology-based standards for only the most
hazardous and most toxic pollutants of all those
regulated under the program Coverage of industries.
EPA issue guidance, under section 304(f) of the
Public Law 92-500, regarding the industrial categories
most closely related to potential discharge of each
pollutant that is covered by technology-based standards."
-------
-61-
Seymour A. Lubetkin, Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners, Newark, NO:
"EPA would issue regulations and standards on
the most toxic and hazardous materials, such as
kepone, etc., where even the smallest trace amount
of the item is detrimental to our ecology and cannot
be tolerated. It would be EPA's judgment as to what
materials and industries effected would be included
in this list. Of course, if an individual industry
disagreed with a particular material, it has its
remedies through the appeal process. These would be
controlled by EPA directly."
Robert Niles, Director of Environmental Control, Uniroyal,
representing the Rubber Manufacturers Association, Statement
at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"...federal technology-based standards for
only the most toxic pollutants, less than 65 pollutants,
should be promulgated for all dischargers...incompatible
pollutants for a POTW should be very carefully
weighed before promulgation of a national standard."
Theodore Garrett, Counsel, National Association of Metal
Finishers:
"The pretreatment standards, themselves, should
be no more stringent than the 1977 BPT standards,
should regulate only the most significant sources of
toxic pollutants, and should be based principally on
the municipal treatment and removal capabilities and
the inhibition-interference considerations in the
statute."
2. Limited coverage would be more cost-effective and treatment-
effective avoiding the situation of treatment-for-treatment's
sake which would occur in many cases in a broad coverage program.
Earle F. Young, Jr., Director, Environmental Affairs
American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.:
"Because of the wide range of treatment provided
by municipalities and the resultant variation in the
impact industrial discharges have on treatment
works, ranging from little or no effect of incompatible
or toxic pollutants in large plants to significant
effects in small plants, to set numeric limits to
cover such a broad range of needed treatment would
result in many cases in needless treatment and
increased energy use to protect for the most critical
situation. The best program would be one that
protects the environment with the least number of
pollutants having absolute or numeric limits.
Option III provides this type of control."
-------
-62-
Milton E. Abraham, Chairman, Niagara Falls Industrial Liaison
Committee for the City of Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment
Plant, NY:
"We suggest a minimum EPA effort (as in Option III)
in development of numerical pretreatment limitations with
a concentrated effort in guidance and approval of sound
local programs.
"...we strongly oppose such a strategy (Option IV).
Such an approach would be extremely inefficient, cost
ineffective (even if EPA resources were available), and
would discourage industrial use of POTW's under the
regionalization concept. We see no need for this level
of federal involvement in pretreatment regulations."
H.J. Campbell, Jr., Engineering Service Division, E.I. DuPont
De Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware:
"We believe that the taxpayers' money can be more
wisely spent through incentive programs for development
, of technically adequate local pretreatment programs. We
suggest a minimum EPA effort.(as in Option III) in develop-
ment of numerical pretreatment limitations with a concentrated
effort in guidance and approval of sound local programs."
Raymond Kudukis, President, Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
Board of Trustees, Cleveland, OH, Statement at Washington, D.C.
Public Hearing:
"To end up with a virtually endless list of toxics only
ensures that virtually none will be controlled because of
the endless litigation and extensive manpower requirements.
This would be unfortunate, since some extremely toxic
materials could go virtually unregulated in this process.
"We propose that EPA draft national.pretreatment
source standards for only the most hazardous and toxic
pollutants. For the remaining pollutants, US-EPA should
draft technology-based standards, structured around the
POTW and its effluent. For these materials, credit
should be given for dilution and removal in the POTW as
defined in Public Law 92-500."
A.P. Kowalik, Manager, Union Oil Company of California, Los
Angeles, CA:
"We also believe it is appropriate that Federal
pretreatment standards should be established for only
the most significant contributors of hazardous or toxic
pollutants as described in Option III of the proposed
rules. Developing Federal pretreatment standards for all
of the 21 industries and all of the 65 toxic pollutants
seems to be an unreasonable burden."
-------
-63-
W. James Wells, Bell, Galyardt and Wells, Inc., Omaha, NB:
"Minimizing the total number of industrial plants
regulated will minimize the amount of surveillance, samp-
ling and testing as well as the amount of paperwork required
by the local authorities, NPDES States and EPA. Concur-
rently, this will serve to focus attention on the major
potential sources of hazardous pollutants. Similarly, re-
gulating only the most hazardous pollutants focuses attention
on the most significant sources of pollution while reducing
the time and expense required to monitor and control pollu-
tants of lesser significance."
3. Limited coverage is more appropriate at this early stage of
the pretreatment program's development.
John G. Costello, Executive Director,.Bergen County Sewer
Authority, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Furthermore, we feel the focus of federal efforts
under Option III on the regulation of the most hazardous
and toxic pollutants and the more significant sources
would be the appropriate direction toward the maximization
of environmental gains at this, early stage of the program
and would establish a firm foundation upon which to build
a strong, highly respected national pretreatment program."
W.A. White, Vice President National Agricultural Chemical Assoc.,
Washington, D.C.:
"As to the number of industries to be covered over the
three-year period proposed: It is always goood to have a
goal, but to make it a fixed objective within a limited period
of time can be foolhardy when the resources are limited and
the full extent of the endeavor is unkown, which seems to
be the case here. EPA has faced fixed objectives in the
past under similar circumstances and some of the results
have not been satisfactory. We support the Option III goal
of 10-13 industries in three years as an objective suggest-
ing that time and resources be taken as needed to complete
each project in a good manner, recognizing that the goal
may not be reached or, optimistically, may even be exceeded.
We hope that EPA will not require more than it can accomplish
in a good manner with the available resources."
C. Comments on the issue of strict compliance with the terms
of the Consent Decree.
1. The EPA need not be overly concerned with complying with
the terms of the Consent Decree.
Albert C. Clark, Vice President and Technical Director, Manu-
facturing Chemists Association, Washington, O.C.:-
-------
-64-
"We also believe EPA. should not be overly preoccupied
with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. settlement
agreement of June 6, 1976 in promulgating these standards.
The current list of 123 toxic pollutants (65 pollutant
families) is not sacred; certain copounds may be added
appropriately, while others may be deleted. The goal of
the Agency must be to work toward the goals of the Act
without unreasonable risk to health and with equity
toward POTW and their manifold users."
S. Norman Kesten, Assistant to the Vice President, Environ-
mental Affairs, ASARCO Incorporated, New York, NY:
"...Consequently, it is essential that each POTW
operator have the maximum flexibility to determine the
quantity and characteristics of the wastes that are
compatible with that plant. It is recognized, of course,
that guidelines for some pollutants from some industries
are mandatory under a court-ordered agreement between EPA
and certain plaintiffs but the court order need not be
permitted to interfere with the necessary flexibility."
Raymond Kudukis, President, Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
Board of Trustees:
"We recognize that statutory revisions may be required
and that some of our proposals may be counter to the
NRDC/EDF consent decree. While we know that those who
brought this action against EPA had every worthwhile
intent, the impracticality of what is proposed could bog
the entire program down in a complex web of further law-
suits, requiring many years to resolves."
John Saucier, Director, Div. of Water Quality Control, Nashville,
TN, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"The time, money and expenditure of resources required
regardless of which option is selected, make it imperative
that other alternatives be evaluated.- This will require
amending the consent decrees that exist today with EPA.
Nevertheless, the State of Tennessee is of the opinion
that this could be done."
B.H. Bruba'ker, Special Assistant to the Director of Safety and
Environmental Engineering, Diamond Shamrock, Cleveland, OH:
"...Diamond Shamrock Corporation supports the concept
of requiring pretreatment of; (1) highly toxic pollutants
that pass through a POTW, after secondary treatment opera-
tions are functional at such POTW's and (2) those wastes
demonstrably interfering with the operation of the POTW
and traceable to industrial sources. We realize that such
-------
-6b-
an approach will, iri all liklihood, require modification
of the consent agreement. To this end, we refer you to
the letter of May 26, 1976 by Judge Thomas A. Flannery
(expressly filed with the opinion in NRDC'v. Train, supra)
indicating that such motions to modify may be entertained.
In order for our position to prevail, Diamond Shamrock
Corporation supports such a position as the most reasonable
and equitable solution of the issue."
P.M. Charles, Corporate Director-Environmental Affairs, Union
Carbide Corp., New York, NY:
"The regulation scope and schedule established in the
NRDC/EDF consent decree'accepted by the Agency are too
ambitious to be consistent with early implementation. All
parties to the agreement should reassess their priorities
in light of the practical level of effort available to
carry out the project, and the accomplishments that would
best serve the needs of the nation."
Eugene L. Kilik, President, Tanner's Council of America, Inc.,
New York, NY:
"Finally, the consent decree in Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.1976)
does not preclude the adoption of Option III. EPA cannot
bargain away its duty to implement the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act in accordance with the intent of Congress.
A bargain struck with a few interest groups cannot override
the Agency's duty to the public."
Thomas E. Roberts, Supervisor of Environmental Control, Celanese
Polymer Specialties Co., Louisville, KY:
!!Jl^DC_J^on^ejit_J)ecree_ It is entirely satisfactory
that EPA should have to modify the NRDC/EDF Consent Decree
in order to implement Option III. Neither the States, the
POTW's, nor industry had any input to the formulation of
that consent agreement and it thus ignored many of our
concerns. In fact, the chemical industry was specifically
denied the right to intervene in that decree."
2. Coverage must be consistent with that stipulated in the
Consent Decree.
Wayne A. Schmidt, Staff•Ecologist, Michigan United Conser-
vation Clubs, Lansing, MI:
"We reject Option III out-of-hand as inconsistent
with the NRDC/EDF Consent decree."
-------
-66-
Meyer Scolnick, Director-Enforcement Div., USEPA Region II,
New York NY:
"Option II is also unacceptable and may be unlawful.
First of all, this option is inconsistent with the Section
307(b) mandate which requires the promulgation of national
standards for the introduction of incompatible pollutants
into a municipal facility. Secondly, the NRDC, EOF
Consent Decree requires that national standards be established
for 65 pollutants and 21 industries. Therefore, Option
III is not even a legally practical alternative until the
Court Order is modified."
J. Taylor Banks, et.al., Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, D.C.:
"Pollutant coverage under Option III would call for
federal standards applicable only to known hazardous
pollutants, and local standards. Sections 307(b) and (c)
as well as the Settlement Agreement contain no authority
for limiting national pretreatment standards in this
manner. Pretreatment standards must be developed for all
pollutants that interfere with, pass through, or otherwise
are incompatible with publicly owned treatment works...
"The coverage of point sources under Option III is,
as noted by EPA in the preamble, flatly inconsistent with
th6 Settlement Agreement. The criteria proposed by EPA
for exclusion of industrial pollutant sources under
Option III bear no resemblance to the criteria which
under the Settlement Agreement EPA has agreed to utilize.
Use of these criteria would result in a substantially
smaller pretreatment program than is required by the
Agreement (e.g. 13 rather
D. Comments supporting the development of Federal guidelines
rather than standards.
William A. Healy, P.E., Executive Director, Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission, Concord, New NH:
"The proposed regulations would seem to be more
appropriate to large communities which are more likely to
have the resources necessary to implement the type of
pretreatment program contemplated by EPA. Once again,
this is clearly an attempt to apply national standards in
an area which has numerous variables and would more
properly be dealt with on a case-by-case basis within the
broad framework of generalizedstate guidelines."
Walter A. Lyon, Director, Bureau of Water Quality Management,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg,
PA:
-------
-67-
"There needs to be some guidance for municipalities
to allow them to establish pretreatment limits on a case
by case basis. This guidance would not be in terms of a
nationwide industrial standard of pretreatment but rather
a description of the treatment processes available for
the various industries and the degree .of pollutant removal
various treatment processes can achieve. Then, based on
the individual situation at the publicly owned treatment
works, the necessary degree of treatment could be established
and effluent requirements be set for each industrial
discharger to the treatment works. This would give the
treatment plant operator the flexibility to develop a
pretreatment program to .fit its specific needs."
Albert C. Clark, Vice President and Technical Director,
Manufacturing Chemists Association, Washington, D.C.:
"Tailoring meaningful standards to individual POTW
should be the Agency's prime concern. Too many assumptions
or generalizations in the standard setting process will
defeat an otherwise nobl«e endeavor. We urge EPA to apply
seasoned judgement in establishing criteria in an effort
to make the program optimum with regard to both treatment
effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Section 304(f)
guidelines can best serve as a basis for judgement rather
than rigid-number limitations."
J.F. Lagnese, Duncan, Lagnese and Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh,
PA:
"...specific pretreatment standards by EPA would not
be required. Certainly, it would be appropriate and
probably necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements
on pretreatment, that EPA would develop general standards
to protect the POTW from damage or interference of the
industrial discharge. I believe these could be universal
type standards applicable to all industries. The detail
implementation of regulations for this type of control
and protection would remain the responsibility of each
POTW subject to EPA review and approval similar to the
procedure now used for user charge compliance, etc."
W.P- Anderson, Assistant Director, Environmental, and Regulatory
Affairs, Tenneco Chemicals, Saddle Brook, NJ:
"We believe the POTW operators should be allowed the
broadest possible freedom to establish pretreatment
regulations for their systems. These must take into
account their specific NPDES permit limits and the
capacity and capability of their own particular systems.
-------
"Federal Guidelines based on reasonably available
technology will undoubtedly be useful to the POTW. These
guidelines, however, must not be allowed to evolve into
rigid "not to exceed" limits as did the effluent guidelines
under the NPDES program. These national guidelines must
be drawn with due consideration to the very great differences
in size, characteristics, treatment capability and discharge
requirements of the various POTWS. For example, some of
our plants discharge into systems with daily flows in the
hundreds of millions of gallons which in turn discharge
directly into the open ocean. On the other extreme, one
plant discharges into a small system, which treats between
one and 1.5 million gallons per day and discharges into a
stream which is used for drinking water supplies."
Bill B. Dendy, Executive Officer, California State Water
Control Board, Sacramento, CA:
"We suggest, as another alternative, a pretreatment
program that is workable and relatively simple while
expending resources only on the areas of greatest need.
The heart of this program consists of placing discharge
limitations on the individual municipalities to ensure
adequate control on the discharge of toxic substances.
The municipality would be required to institute those
controls necessary to prevent any plant upset or effluent
discharge in violation of their discharge permit. To
assist the municipality in accomplishing this task, under
Section 304(f), the Agency could publish true guidelines
illustrating available pretreatment technology and performance
for various industrial categories and could outline the
procedural aspects of an adequate pretreatment program."
Paul C. Hittle, General Supervisor of Environmental Activities,
Consumers Power Co., Jackson, MI:
"The Company, however, does not favor unguided local
establishment of pretreatment standards for nonhazardous
pollutants. The Company believes that many municipalities
would not have the available resources to establish such
standards based on meaningful criteria and that the
unguided setting of standards by municipal agencies could
produce widely differing and inconsistent standards
throughout a state. Moreover, the task of establishing
meaningful criteria upon which to base such pretreatment
standards might well discourage many local agencies from
actively participating in the pretreatment program. The
Company, therefore, recommends that EPA or NPDES issuing
states provide flexible guidelines for municipal agencies
to follow in establishing pretreatment standards for
nonhazardous pollutants."
-------
-69-
J.L. Rodgers, Jr., Division Manager, Amer. Water Works Service
Co., Inc., East Dedham, MA:
"We also feel that Option III will permit both the EPA
and state agencies to provide general guidelines to be used
by local agencies in developing proper programs for pretreat-
ment and enforcement of these. Also, EPA and state agencies
will be able to act as recommending agencies performing re-
search for practical application in the field. Further,
Option III will permit the quickest regulation of the most
hazardous pollutants which are known to adversely affect
aquatic environments, fish and/or drinking water."
T.H. Goodgame, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Benton
Harbor, MI:
"It is also strongly recommended that 'the national
requirements be put forth in the form of guidance rather
than standards. By this means, the agency with the local
authority and responsibility for determination of limitations
has the flexibility required of the local situation - that is,
overriding local conditions can be fully taken into consid-
eration, whether they are based upon technology, stream limi-
tations or economics."
E. Comments supporting the position that the degree to which
an industry is regulated must take into consideration the
standard's technical attainability.
H.J. Campbell, Jr., Engineering Service Division, •£.I. DuPont
DeNemours and Company, Wilmington, DE:
"As with effluent guidelines for direct dischargers,
any pretreatment guidelines should be based upon tech-
nology applicable to each given industrial category
rather than transfer technology. Furthermore, guideline
levels should also reflect reliable, long-term performance
of technology that can be consistently attained by full-
scale field equipment on a day-to-day basis. All too
often transfer technology and short-term technology per-
formance have been misused and relied upon in past guide-
line promulgation attempts. As we all have experienced,
such inadequate technical bases have led to, and, if used
in the future, will continue to lead to needless and in-
effective legal recourses."
J.F. Cormack, Supervisor, Water Programs, Environmental Services,
Crown Zellerbach, Camas, WA:
"The eventual establishment of a uniform limit for
all categories for a given pollutant will be troublesome.
It would presumably be on a concentration basis. This
will inevitably result in discouraging desirable water
conservation programs. Also, great care must be taken to
ensure that the limits are technically achievable by all
affected industries."
-------
-70-
Pj?J™rnts jjJjpporting the position that regulated pollutants
and industries should be categorized.
Marwan M. Sada-t, New Jersey Office of Sludge'Management and
Industrial Pretreatment, Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Recognizing the economic impact of industrial pre-
.treatment standards on small industries, we would sup-
port, after-the implementation of water quality standards
and careful consideration, future levels of concentration
less stringent than the APT standards for the small
dischargers. It is apparent that MCI's (Major Contributing
Industries) benefit from-the economy of scale resulting
from the construction of large pretreatment facilities.
In setting the APT standards, we feel that EPA should
assign different levels of concentration for varying size
pretreatment facilities. Large installations would have
to meet more stringent requirements. Small discharge APT
standards would impose higher concentration limits."
W.C. Trefz, Chief Engineer, Allegheny County Sanitary Authority,
Pittsburgh, PA:
"The 65 toxic pollutants should be categorized into
groups to establish priorities with :emphasis on removing
at an early date those most objectionable and for which
proper techniques have been developed."
-------
-71-
V. SLUDGE DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS
The type and quantity of industrial discharges and the degree
to which industrial pretreatment is practiced will directly influence
the characteristics of a POTW's sludge. Where industrial pretreat-
ment is not practiced, toxic pollutants will be absorbed into and contam-
inate the POTW's sludge. The presence of these pollutants limits the
sludge disposal alternatives - as composting and land spreading -
available to the POTW and thus increases the cost of adequate sludge
disposal. Consideration of this issue is incorporated into the four
options in that the toxic contamination of municipal sludges and the
ability of pretreatment standards to reduce contamination is a factor
in the promulgation of national standards.
Under all four options, the granting of a variance or modi-
fication is contingent upon a showing by the POTW of adequate sludge
disposal and/or utilization capabilities. Case-by-case modifications
could result in further sludge contamination problems and, hence, ad-
ditional constraints or. feasible disposal alternatives. Therefore,
variances are conditional on the availability of environmentally-sound
disposal methods. In addition, it becomes readily discernible that the
primary responsibility for the management of these toxic sludges will
be placed on either the POTW or the industrial generator depending on:
(1) the extent and degree of stringency of pretreatment standards; and,
(2) the provision of variances.
Another aspect to this issue is the recently enacted Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Under Subpart C of this Act, standards
for the management of hazardous and toxic wastes will be established
with enforcement authority through a permit system.
-------
-72-
After a review of opinions expressed at public hearings
and in written comment, four issues have been identified that have
a direct bearing on the question of sludge disposal and treatment:
A. Whether sludge disposal considerations are rightfully
a part of a pretreatment program or should be dealt with under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act?
B. Responsibility for the management of toxic sludges.
C. The demand for broad industry and pollutant coverage
to avoid sludge contamination problems.
D. The impact of case-by-case modifications on a POTW's
sludge.
A. Sludge disposal considerations should be addressed by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of'1976 instead of
being made a condition for variance approval.
Albert C. Clark, Manufacturing Chemists Association,
Washington, D.C.:
"It is recognized that pass-through may affect
the characteristics of the sludge and thus limit the
disposal options for it. Because sludge disposal is
addressed in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and because of the multi-media aspects of sludge
disposal, we urge that regulatory considerations
under 40CFR403 be concentrated on the quality and
quantity of the influent to the POTW. If that is
done in the context of the POTW design and operating
characteristics, the sludge problem should be simplified."
Richard J. Wooley, President, Spence Electro Plating
Company, Metal Finishers of Southern California, Burbank,
CA:
"This variance should in no way be conditioned
upon tihe adequacy of the POTW sludge disposal methods.
EPA has no authority for such requirements under
Section 307(b) of the Act. Such matters can be
dealt with as appropriate under other programs, such
as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976."
-------
-73-
Bruce S. Crutcher, Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce,
Cincinatti, OH:
"Questions related to sludge disposal methods should
be severed from those related to pretreatment regulations,
even those applicable to toxic substances. The Agency
has authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (PL 94-580) to insure proper sludge disposal
and, as the Agency itself stated, the choice of a sludge
disposal method should be a local decision based upon the
alternatives available in that specific area."
E.E. Ross, Manager, Water Pollution Control Department, East
Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA:
"While we believe that there may be definable relationships
between direct industrial discharger quality and municipal
sewage sludge quality, the extent to which sludge quality
can be controlled by the application of pretreatment to
conform with yet to be developed hazardous waste disposal
guidelines or regulations pursuant to the Resource Con-
servation Recovery Act of 1976(PL 94-590) will depend
upon local conditions.
"Compliance with PL 94-580 provisions may or may not
be consistent with measures required to achieve the
objectives stated in the first paragraph of this section.
Therefore, we feel that the inclusion of sludge disposal
considerations in the pretreatment program objectives for
PL 92-500 is not appropriate at this time."
Theodore Garrett, Counsel, National Association of Metal Fin-
ishers, Washington, D.C.:
"The pretreatment regulations should provide for a
relaxation of the federal standards where the municipal
treatment works achieve treatment levels better than
those assumed by EPA in developing the standards. This
variance should in now way be conditioned upon the adequacy
of the municipality's sludge disposal methods, as to
which Section 307(b) of the Act provides EPA with no
authority, and which is better handled under other statutes,
such as RCRA."
Elaine Fielding, Legal Dept., Clark Oil Refining Corp., Blue
Island, IL:
"Second, sludge disposal concerns are not properly the
concern of pretreatment standards. To the extent that in-
dustrial discharges can, as asserted, 'contribute signifi-
cantly to sludge disposal problems of POTWs" (Information
For Proposed General Pretreatment Regulations, at p.2), no
-------
-74-
good reasons are adduced for adopting pretreatment stand-
ards that would merely pass the problem back to the dis-
charger. The environmental problem would be the same.
Moreover, incorporating sludge disposal considerations
into the pretreatment program is an extra-legal and
unauthorized assertion of authority by EPA. Nowhere does
the Act warrant such an assumption of authority by EPA.
No one would deny that proper waste disposal is a serious
national issue. However, it deserves to be treated in an
integrated fashion under the Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act, not in the fragmented, back-door approach
contemplated by the proposed regulations. We recommend
that all references to sludge disposal be deleted from
the regulations.
Guy Weismantel, Western Editor Chemical Engineering, Los
Angeles, CA:
"Also, prior to making rulings on joing treatment,
EPA should get its own house in order. The present legis-
lation is public law 94-580, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, October 21, 1976. Under subtitle C
there is a section on hazardous wastes—and this section
on hazardous wastes—and this section would naturally
effect any joint treatment legislation. Under 94-580
Jack Lehman and his group have to define what is a hazardous
waste. This will be done, with input from those who are
interested, and it will probably be about an 18 month
process. I do not honestly know how you can set guidelines
on joint treatment until these definitions have been
presented and published."
Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner, New York State Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany, NY:
"...large metropolitan sewer districts also have the
most severe problem of adequate disposal of large volumes
of contaminated municipal sludge. Many reasonable methods
of sludge disposal such as incineration or land disposal
are precluded because of resultant air or groundwater
pollution. In the immediate future, and until a pretreatment
program becomes effective, extremely difficult decisions
regarding adequate disposal of sludge will be facing us.
It is for this reason that contingencies in the proposed
regulations that relate to satisfying The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) may be inconsistent with the
least environmentally adverse means of sludge disposal.
Therefore, these contingencies must be flexible and allow
significant State input and modification."
-------
-75-
B. The primary responsibility for the management of toxic sludges
should be with the POTW rather than numerous individual in-
dustrial plants.
Andrew Aiken, Narragansett Electric Company, Providence, Rhode
RI, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"There are also the issues of treatment system
operation and sludge disposal to contend with. A single
POTW, where it can adequately treat industrial wastewater,
can be more effectively monitored and controlled by the
appropriate agencies than can a series of pretreatment
systems owned and operated by individual industries.
Also, each pretreatment system will produce a solid waste
product, much of which will be deemed a hazardous waste
material under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976. Such material will be difficult to dispose of
and the temptation for illicit disposal may be compel-
ling. With a single POTW and a limited number of pretreatment
plants, the sludge disposal problem can be better controlled
by solid waste management authorities."
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX:
"You are proposing to go from that to a situation
where you not only have the 12,000 publicly-owned treatment
words with their concomitant sludge disposal problems,
but also 55,000 industries with pretreatment facilities
and comcomitant sludge disposal problems. With the
advent of such an increase in the number of sludge sources,
you will begin to encounter every violative sludge disposal
technique imaginable. The regulatory resources of the
Federal, State, and local governments will be exceeded
accordingly. We feel quite strongly that in order to
minimize the sludge disposal problem the sludge disposal
capabilities of the publicly-owned treatment works ought
to be optimized."
Joint Comment of the Buffalo Sewer Authority and the Buffalo
Area Advisory Council on Industrial Wastewater, Buffalo, NY:
"In support of our proposal, we feel that these
recommendations have the best potential for improving the
environment without excessive unnecessary economic impact
on industrial users. A POTW with the responsibility for
meeting water quality-related effluent limit guidelines
for its own discharge, together with the responsibilities
for the protection of the biolgoical, mechanical and
hydraulic integrity of the plant, and for the environ-
mentally safe disposal of its sludge, is ideally qualified
to establish pretreatment standards to control the character
of its influent."
-------
-76-
W.R. Johnson, Director-Plant Environment, General Motors Corp.,
Warren, MI:
"The law of conservation of mass dictates that very
stringent pretreatment standards for preserving or upgrad-
ing the POTW's sludge quality would exchange the POTW's
sludge disposal problem for an industrial sludge disposal
problem. In either case, environmentally acceptable dis-
posal problem. In either case, environmentally acceptable
disposal methods must be used. However, the decision on
where this burden should lie should clearly be left to
the individual POTWs and not indirectly made for them by
the U.S. EPA through the adoption of unnecessarily strin-
gent national pretreatment standards.
John F- Hall, National Forest Products Assoc., Washington, D.C.:
"Stringent pretreatment requirements will in turn
create large accumulations of sludge; POTW's are more
experienced and are in a superior position technologically
to handle large amounts of sludge. Numeric limits incor-
porated into municipal permits for incompatible pollutants
should be considered when technology-based, standards are
being developed."
Kenneth A. Fenner, Counsel •, Masonite Corp., Chicago,. I.L:
"An additional problem that arises under the preterat-
ment scheme is that the number of locations at which sludges
will be generated will expand enormously. The Agency's
responsibility to police disposal will be multiplied tre-
mendously, and perhaps far beyond the Agency's capabilities.
The POTW on the other hand, as a central gathering point,
will minimize the number of locations. Furthermore, the
POTW will generally have a greater and more sophisticated
sludge handling and disposal capability. These capabilities
can be further augmented by the Agency's construction
grants program and enforced by standard provisions found
in Part B of all NPDES permits. The expenses, of course,
can be passed on to the sources through the user charge
system."
C.R. Calkins, Vice-President-Environmental Affairs, American Paper
Institute, Washington, D.C.:
"Sludge disposal considerations in setting pretreatment
standards may force industrial facilities to handle a variety
of sludges in many separate locations. We submit that, in
many cases, it may be better to have a municipality deal
with sludge disposal rather than each individual industrial
facility. This would be a particularly burdensome respon-
sibility for small plants with limited technical staff
-------
-77-
and/or land area to handle solid waste. We also believe
that to require pretreatment which would produce a sludge
from the POTW acceptable for land application at a location
which disposes of sludge in an alternative manner (i.e.,
incineration) would not be cost-effective. We suggest,
further, that sludge disposal considerations be limited
to those highly toxic materials which are likely to
concentrate in sludges."
C. Industry and pollutant coverage must be broad to avoid sludge
contamination problems.
H. Clay Kellogg, Jr., General Manager, Kellog Supply Inc.,
Carson, CA:
"This is the 52nd year which our company, Kellogg
Supply, Inc., has been marketing sewage sludge. We
currently sell approximately 40,000 dry tons per year and
the material is on allocation by us to our customers
because of lack of supply from the Sanitation District.
Over 80% of our business is done with the retail nurseries
and garden shops. In most areas of the United States
there has not been an effort to market sewage sludge.
Now that more and more of it is being collected, it could
become a plague rather than the natural resource which it
is if unfair restrictions are put upon its use ... To
allow some industry to pollute one of our greatest natural
resources, which sewage sludge is, would be a disgrace.
Next thing you know, sewage would be called a hazardous
waste or the Board of Health would put so many restrict-
ions on its use that everyone would be afraid to use it."
Albert S. Matlack, The Society of Natural History of Delaware,
Hockessin, DE:
"Paper after paper bemoans the fact that toxic
heavy metals limit the use of sewage sludge on land.
Methods such as ion exhange, electrolysis, solvent ex-
traction, precipitation, etc. exist for the recovery of
Cr, Ni, Cd, Zn, Pb, Hg, Cu, etc. at the metal finishing
on other source. The reason they are not used is that it
is cheaper to throw away the Rhodesian Cr, or Canadian
Ni, even though the supply at the source is limited.
With these metals removed, the sludge can be used on land
as a source of N, P, and organic material."
Wayne A. Schmidt, Staff Ecologist, Michigan United Conservation
Clubs, Lansing, MI:
"MUCC supports strong wastewater pretreatment standards.
We do not believe that the public should subsidize removal
of industrial toxic pollutants, such as heavy metals and
halogenated hydrocarbons, at publicly-owned treatment
works (POTW). Most municipal treatment plants in Michigan
-------
-78-
are not designed to remove such toxicants and the introduction
of such chemicals creates serious problems affecting
public resources -- air pollution from incomplete incineration
of sludge; water pollution from inadequate treatment of
wastewater discharge; increased costs of operation from
incompatible chemicals interfering with normal treatment;
and prevention of land treatment practices because of
potential groundwater contaamination and public health
hazards from treatment of agricultural lands ... One of
the reasons only '25' percent of the POTW sludge is
utilized on land for animal and human food crops' is the
absence of stringent pretreatment standards today.
Current wasteful disposal practices (i.e., landfill ing or
incineration) should not be justification for pretreatment
standards which do not assume future land disposal.
"Further measures should also be mandated
regarding reduction of toxic substances at their source,
and recycling and recovery of useful industrial materials...
Problems of sewage treatment, and, particularly, sludge
disposal are acute in our state, especially in the greater
Detroit area. Disposal of sludge via land treatment is
inevitable; the sooner stringent pretreatment standards
are applied, the sooner we will have a chance to solve
these problems of disposal."
Thomas Glenn, Director and Chief Engineer, Interstate .Sani-
tation Commission, Greater New York Metropolitan Area, CN:
"But we are coming to realize that sludges containing
more than acceptable amounts of heavy metals, and possibly
other substances, originating in industrial wastes cannot
be safely spread on the land.
"If these detrimental substances cannot be largely
removed from sewage by practical and economic treatment
methods, the only way to keep them from unreasonably
intensifying the sludge problem is to insist on pretreatment
and source control."
A.B. Early, Environmental Action, Washington, D.C.:
"Landspreading of sludge on croplands may require the
removal of pollutants at greater rates than is required to
meet the national standards. Either the national standards
should be based on the use of the sludge disposal alternative
demanding the greatest amount of removal (presumably land-
spreading on croplands), or a mechanism must be established
-------
-79-
enables the POTW to lower the standard because it is
"incompatible" with the disposal alternative being used.
The failure of the proposed regulations to address this prob-
lem presumably leaves the establishment of a more stringent
standard as a local requirement. Section 307(b)(l) of the
FWPCA (33USC1317 (b) (1)) requires the issuance of pretreat-
ment standards for introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works as defined in Section 212 "which would-
interfere with the operation of such treatment works."
(emphasis supplied) Section 212(2)(A) of the Act (33 USC
1292(2)(A)) clearly contemplates sludge disposal as included
in the definition of treatment works. Environmental Action
takes the position that EPA should therefore assume the
use of a sludge disposal method that requires the greatest
amount of pollutant removal from the sludge disposal method
that requires the greatest amount of pollutant removal from
the sludge to prevent water or other environmental degra-
dation."
D. Case-by-case modifications of the promulgated 'standards could
result in additional incompatible pollutants in POTW's sludge
restricting disposal possibilities.
Charles J. Henry, Director, Water Pollution Control, Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, WA:
"Some problems could develop from the requirement that
acceptable sludge disposal program are a prerequisite to
granting local variances. Since most large municipalities
are faced with a sludge disposal problem, an 'interim policy
may have to be established to prevent undue hardships on
local industry tributary to such systems. If an industry
is not contributing to the situation which is snagging the
approval of an acceptable sludge disposal program, it should not
be required to suffer the loss of an otherwise permissible
variance."
W.G. Turney, Bureau Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau,
Dept. of Natural Resources, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI:
"Sludge considerations: In the development and approval
of local pretreatment programs, a very clear analysis of
the sludge disposal or use question should be provided.
The options available for sludge management may be more
critically affected by pretreatment decisions than are
the biological treatment process options which could be
affected. A clear review of the sludge question should
be required with respect to capital, energy, and other
environmental impacts before local programs are approved."
Kenneth S. Kamlet, Counsel, National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C.:
"First, the issue of removal versus treatment, as
the basis for a variance -- none of the options adequately
addresses what EPA itself recognizes to be one of the funda-
mental problems pretreatment standards should be designed
-------
-80-
to remedy; namely, reduction of contaminant levels in
sewage sludge.
"As noted by the preamble to the proposed regulations
many industrial pollutants can contribute significantly to
the sludge disposal problems of POTW's. Industrial pollu-
tants, particularly metals and other toxic pollutants can
limit the sludge disposal alternatives available to the POTW,
and thus, increase the cost of adequate sludge disposal
facilities, and in some cases, improper handling of metals
and/or other toxic contaminated sludges can result in uptake
of metals by crops in the human food chain, or leaching
of these pollutants into ground water, as well as surface
waters. And that was a quote from the preamble of the pro-
posed regs.
"So, the contaminant content of sewage sludge, the end-
product of POTW contaminant removal processes, is a matter
of considerable environmental significance. Unfortantely,
the variance procedures proposed by EPA for all four of its
pretreatment options, fail to give sludge the consideration
it requires."
Albert J. Slap, Sierra Club's National Water Quality Committee,
Philadelphia, PA:
"The idea of local credits for sewage treatment plants
that remove substantial quantities of industrial pollu-
tants is plainly wrong. Even though there is a removal
from the liquid to solid phase, and consequently no pass-
through EPA's responsibility over pollution is now 'from
cradel to grave." That is, EPA has not discharged its
responsibility and, hence, cannot relieve the industrial
discharger of its duty, by pointing to a percentage
removal at the publicly owned treatment works.
"The sludge in the municipal plant would, in a
variance situation, contain more industrial waste and
probably be unfit for land application. EPA cannot leave
the solution of this type of problem solely to the local
government."
Marwan M. Sadat, New Jersey Office of Sludge Management and
Industrial Pretreatment, Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"National pretreatment regulations should preclude the
qualifications of the national pretreatment standards and
and should not allow for any variances from those standards.
When variances are granted on the basis of a high degree
of removal by a POTW, the net result of such a variance
is to concentrate in the sludge the pollutants which
the pretreatment program is supposed to remove. Under
Option 1, municipalities would be required to demonstrate
-------
-81-
that adequate sludge disposal facilities could handle the
additional contaminants in the sludge. This would only
increase the complexity of the sludge disposal problem.
It is important to keep in mind that the main objective
of any industrial pretreatment program is to minimize the
impact of pollutants on the environment. When toxic
substances, heavy metals and contaminants are concen-
trated in the sludge they invariably affect another
sector of our environment and may even, in extreme cases,
return to the surface waters we are trying to protect.
For this reason, we feel that whatever option EPA finally
decides to implement, no variance for toxics and heavy
metals should be granted to local authorities."
Louis J. Breimhurst, Director-Div. of Water guality, Minnnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MM:
"Any variance increases the potential for problems
developing from sludge disposal. Approval of local credit
allowances alone will adversely affect sludge quality. In
addition, if industries are allowed to discharge a pollutant
at a given concentration, as opposed to mass limits, POTW's
receiving a given pollutant from several industries may
still have a sludge quality problem. A water quality vari-
ance would only add to this problem. None of these options
really dealt with this to assure good sludge quality for
acceptable disposal. Since this aspect of wastewater treat-
ment can constitute up to one-half of wastewater treatment
costs, it is of major concern."
Dr. Dana Davoli, Director of Toxic Substances Research, Citizens
for a Better Environment, Chicago, IL:
"In granting a variance, EPA also states that it must
be assured that the sludge will be disposed of in an environ-
mentally safe manner. Such variances granted by EPA would
necessarily involve an increase in the amounts of toxic pol
lutants in the POTW's sludge. This would include increases
not only in the levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury
and cadmium, but also increases in organic substances such
as chloroform, benzene, and pesticides. Such increases in
toxic substances would limit the number and types of disposal
options available to the treatment plant and therefore increase
the costs of sludge utilization or disposal. In addition,
there are large gaps in our knowledge as to what constitutes
a "safe" disposal method. Incineration of sludge may result
in hazardous air emissions and water pollution both by fallout
of these air emissions to the water and by improper disposal
of the ash. Landfilling may result in pollution of ground
waters and ocean dumping may have toxic effects on aquatic
life. In some areas, sludge is used solely for agricultural
landspreading. Even with proper land management, problems
can still arise with this type of disposal due to our lack
-------
-82-
of knowledge about the environmental fate and biological
uptake and effects of such heavy metals as cadmium and
selenium in agricultural use. Our level of knowledge
is even more limited when dealing with organic compounds
such as pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and
others listed on the settlement agreement. In addition
to the problems associated with heavy metals (environmental
fate, biological uptake), volatilization of organics from
sludge can result in increased air pollution and increased
human exposure. Due to this lack of information on safe
disposal of sludge, CBE feels that every effort should
be made to prevent contamination of municipal sludge with
toxic materials. Stringent pretreatment standards are a
step in the right direction. Granting variances to second-
ary treatment works is not. While we realize that stringent
pretreatment standards may cause a sludge disposal problem
for industry, the sludge produced in this case represents
a much smaller volume and, therefore, could be more adequately
handled by sanitary landfills."
-------
-83-
VI- MEETING STATUTORY COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
Considerable discussion concerning POTW and industrial
compliance with statutory dealines, as set forth in PL 92-500, has
been generated by the proposed pretreatment regulations. At the
heart of the compliance issue lies the unanswered question of
whether or not the, as-yet, unpromulgated pretreatment standards
will cause delay in the attainment of the July 1, 1977, and July,
1983, water quality goals and technology control requirements.
The crucial factors which have raised this interest
center on the following key relationships:
a) the lack of enabling legislation for some
States and localities;
b) the time required to train and staff local
agencies; to establish model ordinances;
c) the "gearing-up" period that will be necessary
to effect efficacious program implementation
and administration;
d) the uncertainties confronting both local con-
trol agencies and industries in municipal sewer
systems where secondary treatment facilities
are not yet operational; and,
e) the unaddressed questions of due process,
judicial review, and legal challenge.
The amalgam of comments presented in this section collec-
tively address the compliance issue.
-------
-84-
A. The lack of enabling legislation and model ordinances for some
States and localities would delay meeting compliance dates.
John G. Costello, Executive Director, Bergen County Sewer
Authority, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"It must also be recognized that many regional
sewer agencies will require state-enabling legislation by
all the member municipalities to obtain the legal power
necessary for direct enforcement of pretreatment regu-
lations. The Bergen County Sewer Authority, for example,
is comprised of 44 autonomous member municipalities with
the result that legal enforcement problems can be exces-
sively complex. Any time limitations or penalties for
delayed local enforcement must consider the time required
for the local authority to obtain state-enabling legis-
lation and for action by all the member municipalities.
We would estimate that it would require at least 3 to 5
years to develop an adequate pretreatment program for
regional sewerage agencies that now lack the proper
enabling legislation."
Frank Dryden, Head, Technical Services Department, Sanitation
District of Los Angeles, Mhittier, CA:
"First, I think that you have to recognize that
communities which do not now have the technical capability
or manpower to set up and run a pretreatment program
suitable to their system are going to require some time.
It takes time to train and develop this capability.
"In our own case, we started, you know, in
'70, and we still aren't up as far along as we would like
to be. There are still parts of the permit program --
You know, we have gotten the major things all under
control, but there are still — of our 7,000, there are
still some that we have not been able to get to and
check. It takes time to write and adopt ordinances. And
if you don't allow a couple years to three years for that
type of process, you are kidding yourself. And if you
try to do it by fiat in a short period of time, I think
you tend to create chaos rather than help the situation
along.
"You must have a training program that recog-
nizes it's going to take time to develop this capability.
But it is entirely capable of being developed in every
community that needs it."
-------
-85-
Bruce S. Crutcher, Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce,
Cincinnati, OH, Statement submitted at Washington, D.C. public
hearing:
"Differently situated are many small POTW's serving
smaller communities which include one or a few large
indirect dischargers. Few of such managing authorities
have adequate pretreatment and enforcement programs, and
the posture of many may be such that the probability of
being over-reached in negotiations with a large indirect
discharger which may also exert a major influence on the
economic health of the local community, may be signifi-
cant. In this situation, we believe compliance with the
intent of the Act would be unnecessarily delayed if the
local authority is required to establish a program of
pretreatment and enforcement which, when its inadequacies
became apparent, would be superseded by State and Federal
action."
Richard Woods, Counsel, Ocean County Sewerage Authority, Toms
River, NJ:
"...the OCSA is created by virtue of the implement-
ing legislation known as the Sewerage Authorities' Law,
N.J.S.A. 40:14A-1, et seq. The powers of the sewerage
authority are set forth in N.J.S.A.40:14A-7. This section
of the Sewerage Authorities' Law is the powers of a
sewerage authority. Although these powers are broad to
enable a sewerage authority to exercise public and essential
governmental functions to provide for the public health
and welfare, they are not broad enough to enable an
authority to impose, for instance, criminal sanctions for
failure to comply with pretreatment regulations.
"Under the laws of the State of New Jersey, the
police power is ultimately vested in the State
Legislature. In certain instances, the police power
has been delegated to municipalities which may, by
ordinance, impose certain penal sanctions for actions
which harm the public health, safety and welfare.
Finally, in certain instances affecting public
health, local boards of health are given the power
to impose penal sanctions.
"A sewerage authority, however, does not have the
type of police power which is vestedin the State Legislature,
municipalities and boards of health. It can act only within
the parameters of its enabling legislation. Section 403.9
far exceeds, in our opinion, the powers which a sewerage
authority in the State of New Jersey can exercise. It is
the OCSA, or any other sewerage authority, to establish
the programs as set forth in Section 403.9"
-------
-86-
The "gearing-up" period required for POTW design and construction
as well as the administrative arid procedural complexities will cause
postponement of compliance deadlines.
Albert C. Clark, Vice President and Technical Director,
Manufacturing Chemists Association, Washington, D.C.:
"We commend the Agency's recognition of the time
factor conflict between July 1, 1977 and the installation
time faced by those who must meet yet-unpromulgated
standards. We recommend that the Agency stipulate, in
the promulgation, that the three-year period for compliance
by all affected industries begins with the date of promulgation.
For many, design, installation and start-up will indeed
be a three year undertaking."
John Lambie, Chief Engineer-General Manager, Ventura Regional
County Sanitation District, Ventura, CA:
"The procedures as outlined for making an appli-
cation for a variance in the pretreatment standards are
complicated to the point that processing of a variance
might require extensive manpower and time commitments."
Charles A. Geisler, Sanitation Engineer, City of Omaha, NB:
"Requiring an industry to sample and report o.n
its status every six months does not guarantee meeting
compliance. This will require a major police action."
Jack Barron, Division Engineer, Industrial Waste Division,
Department of Public Works, San Francisco, CA, Response to
Question at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"...Basically, we began our efforts in '73, and
this is the gearing up process and problems that you
have.
"Our first emphasis was on getting a surcharge
program in operation, and we found we had to do it all at
one time because we were being taken to court if we
attempted it on a piecemeal basis. So we had to expend
the first year in getting this program underway since our
SPDES permit was granted in '74. So we didn't precisely
know what we would have to control.
"So since '73, these ensuing years, we have been con-
centrating on our pH problems, which we now have under
control, and then on our heavy metals.
"Now, we will be getting into controlling those things
that may have any adverse effect on our secondary treatment
plants in our next phase..."
"And I would like to reemphasize...that it takes con-
siderable time to gear up to do these things because industry
can't overnight, and neither can we overnight, arrive at
solutions that will resolve the issues."
-------
-87-
Frank Dryden, Head, Technical Services Department, Sanitation
District of Los Angeles, Whittier, CA:
"I would like to point out that the options appear
to be quite complicated administratively and that there
is a great need to simplify some of the concepts and some
of the administrative procedures, and that failure to
simplify them will probably result in their demise because
it will almost become an excuse for adopting what would
be administratively simplistic but I think not the best
or most reasonable approach, and that of decreeing uniform
national standards without the variances. So I'm very
concerned that, as you proceed to selecting and adopting
a final option that you work for a simplification of the
procedures, for which I have some suggestions this morn-
ing."
Roger R. Patocka, Banner Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineer
and Architects, Brookings, SD:
"It is felt that any of the four options presented
will require a great amount of effort to implement.
Laboratory capability will be needed as well as the
expertise necessary to perform the analyses. It is
questionable if the proposed timetables can be met."
James B. Bewley, Superintendent, Water Pollution Control,
South Bayside System Authority, San Carlos, CA, Response to
question at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"...My only hedge would be what you determine to
be a reasonably short period of time to get the program
going and started.
"I'm sure you recognize it takes some time. You
have the ordinance problem and the budgetary problems and
finding the people. The time, though, up -- the time
constraints up until now have not been on the local
agency. We have been anxiously awaiting federal guidance
since 1972 on this.
"So I do think that it would be reasonable that --
I will stay with California because my only experience is
here -- that the State Board through the regional boards
could establish a procedure for determining whether a
local agency was capable of handling it. I think in the
absence of such procedure, yes, that the -- the technology-
based standards would be all that you have to work with."
Robert Cruess, Permit and Surveillance Division, State of New
Hampshire, Concord, NH, Statement at Washington, D.C. public
hearing:
-------
-88-
"...I think the standards should be written before
we have the procedures to implement them. But then, the
second issue is that with these standards, I think you
will find that it will take you ten years before you have
a handful of communities running a pretreatment program.
I think it would be better to have a more simplified
program and make it concentrated only where we have large
major industrial concentrations. In New Hampshire,
that's probably two communities.
William B. Dendy, Executive Officer, California State Water
Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA:
"Subsection (3) indicates that EPA expects local
agencies to be able to develop technology based limits on
an interim basis pending promulgation of national standards.
Considering the difficulties EPA encountered in establishing
the BPT standards, this is a curious statement. We don't
understand how local agencies can be expected to accomplish
such a task in this time frame. The most that we would
expect is for those few agencies already having some pre-
treatment requirements to continue and for some of the
largest POTW operators not yet having any pretreatment
requirements to adopt some requirements...It is also
important that any requirement for pretreatment be consistent
with the timing of municipal treatment facilities construction.
Industries will, in accordance with applicable revenue
recovery programs, be paying for these facilities and as
such they should be entitled to obtain any benefits in
terms of reduced pretreatment which result from the use
of the municipal facilities."
W.R. Johnson, Director-Plant Environment, General Motors
Corp., Warren, MI:
"During our contacts with POTWs, large or small,
each has one or more persons responsible for implementing
an industrial wastewater control program under a local
ordinance. Programs of some large POTWs, such as Chicago
Metropolitan. Sanitary District and Los Angeles County
Sanitary District, were developed and implemented success-
fully even before the promulgation of any federal pretreat-
ment standards. Further, many POTWs have not fully developed
the capability to enforce pretreatment programs because
of the uncertain nature of federal regulations. The full
development of local enforcement capability may take
several years for some POTWs. However, again, the development
of an equivalent capability at the federal level may take
even longer."
-------
-89-
C. Due process, judicial review, and other legal considerations will
delay compliance with established statutory deadlines.
Kenneth S. Kamlet, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
D.C., addressing question regarding the level of adequacy for
due process in granting variances, Washington, D.C. public
hearing:
[Comments in regard to due process for industrial variances]
"Just off the top of my head, one thought occurs to
me, as a means of preventing such variance proceedings
from dragging on indefinitely while the discharges
continue, might be an approach similar to one layed out
by Congress in the Water Act, the Air Act and various
other statutes, whereby industry, those that are subject
to the regulation, are given 60 days or 90 days or some
set period of time in which to complain, and if they
don't avail themselves of that opportunity within that
period of time, then they are foreclosed from complaining
thereafter.
"Once they register their complaint, the request for
a variance, they will have an opportunity to have a
hearing and so forth, administratively and whatever. I
am not suggesting that they not have the opportunity to
make their case and have the decision made on the basis
of the evidence they present.
"It seems to me that a balance has to be struck, as
you pointed out, and one way of doing that would be to
establish some reasonable cut-off for objecting to what
has been adopted."
[Comments in fegard to due process for POTW variances]
"1. First, we reiterate our strong view that variances
should be made available only in rare cases, only where the
"fundamentally different" nature of a POTW results in a
degree of treatment (not merely "removal") in excess of
that upon which the national standard was based, and only
where the grant of a variance will cause no decline in the
quality of either the resultant effluent or the resultant
sewage sludge.
"2. Second, we believe different approaches are appro-
priate and necessary for new as opposed to existing POTW's.
Since existing POTW's presumably have an operational experience
upon which to draw, it is fitting that such plants should
be given less time than new sources in which to challenge
or seek variances from pretreatment requirements.
-------
-90-
"3. Third, inasmuch as the national (and other)
pretreatment standards for industries and pollutants will
generally, if not always, have effective dates delayed by
as much as three years from the date of their final
promulgation, variance requests, variance proceedings,
and the disposition of such requests should be made,
conducted, and completed within the phase-in period.
Moreover, variance decisions should be made sufficiently
early in the phase-in period to permit affected industries
to complete any necessary process or facility modifications
within this period, without delaying the effective date
of the standards.
"4. Fourth, for existing POTW's, the operating auth-
ority should have no more than 60 days from the date of
promulgation of the final pretreatment standards within
which to request a variance. EPA (or the NPDES state)
should be required to hold a complete variance proceedings,
along with a final disposition of the variance request,
within a maximum of 180 days from the date of the request.
"5. Fifth, for new POTW's, the operating authority
should have no more than 60 days from the date of promul-
gation of a final pretreatment standard within which to
request a variance, unless: (a) EPA determines within 15
days of the request that probable cause exists to anticipate
ultimate approval of the request, (b) the operating
authority demonstrates that, by virtue of the "newness"
of the POTW, it was not reasonably possible to accumulate
the data necessary to evaluate the need for a variance
within the time limits applicable to an existing POTW,
and (c) the operating authority exercised its best good
faith efforts to expeditiously assemble all necessary
data and otherwise to comply with the time limits appli-
cable to existing POTW's.
"6. Sixth, where a new POTW qualifies (as in 5,
above) for an extension in the time limit for requesting
such extension should in no case exceed 60 days from the
earlies date on which the operating authority could
reasonably have had available the data necessary to
determine the need for a variance. Again, the decision
on the requested variance should be forthcoming within a
maximum of 180 days from the date of the request.
"7. Seventh, if it is necessary to stay the effective-
ness of a pretreatment standard pending a determination
on a request for a variance, the stay should be as narrowly
drawn and of as limited a duration as possible. Variance
requests for which decisions have not been made within
the allotted 180-day period should be deemed denied."
C.J. Buschkill, Manufacturing Engineer, George Koch Sons,
Inc., Evansville, IN:
"The present BPT requirement by July 1, 1977, and
-------
-91-
BPT by July, 1983, are undefinable, indefinite, and
unrealistic. The interpretation, as I have attempted
to secure from federal, state and local levels, is so
broad that litigation could easily continue for the
next decade."
Seymour A. Lubetkin, Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, Clifton, NJ, Statement at Washington, D.C.
public hearing:
"Generally speaking, some of the time tables indicated
in the Federal Register, are out of date with reality,
particularly on some very large, complex projects. And,
although I realize there are dates within the law that,
at present, are unalterable, I request that when the
final regulations are drawn, consideration be given to
the problems of many urban areas, whereby primary treat-
ment plants are being upgraded to secondary plants after
dates, which prohibit such a plant from administering a
pretreatment program.
"In our particular case, for instance, due to the
siz.e and complexity of the problem, the first phase of
construction will not be completed until the end of 1980,
whereby we will have a secondary treatment plant, but
without primary clarifiers. Thus, not up to the removals
required by law.
"The second phase will not be completed until the
end of 1983, and it is only at that time, with a 93
percent removal, will we meet the standards necessary for
our discharge.
"The PVSC is working as fast as possible and all the
dates set in the law cannot make construction go any
faster. It would be unconscionable, because of such a
long and complex construction program, for the industries
within our area to be unnecessarily penalized and bur-
dened twice; first, by having to install pretreatment
equipment because we cannot meet a construction date for
our discharge as set in the regulations, particularly
since the delay is causing no problems in our area, and
then, secondly, by paying through the industrial cost
recovery system for our expensive upgrading, which makes
unnecessary part of their pretreatment."
Robert G. O'Dette, Environmental Engineer, statement at
Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"The disregard for many economic considerations,
from an engineering and consumer point of view is most
distressing. The only costs mentioned in the Register
were $15 to $85 million for reporting requirements, and
less than $1 million for compliance. The following
conservative estimate will show that actually this cost
may well exceed $300 million for compliance alone.
"If this is the case, EPA will have violated Exec-
utive Order 11821, as extended, OMB Circular A-107, and
-------
-92-
their own guidelines on economic impact analysis, which
requires an analysis if incremental amortized costs of
compliance, including capital charges, exceeds $100
mill ion.
"Without this analysis, it is virtually impossible
for people who must bear the burden of the costs of the
program and increased consumer costs, to make any in-
formed decision to support or reject the proposed regu-
lation."
J.R. Thorpe, Manager of Environmental Affairs, GPU Service
Corporation, Parsippany, NJ:
"Under Section 403.8, a Regional Administrator may
withdraw a previously granted "variance for removal of
pollutants" (local credit) after notice to the POTW and
all indirect dischargers, and publication of the reasons
for the withdrawal. The proposed regulations, however,
do not provide for a hearing prior to the withdrawal of
the variance. In view of the severe impact on the
operations of both the POTW and its industrial dischar-
gers of a withdrawal of the local credit variance, EPA
must provide an opportunity for a hearing prior to the
withdrawal of the variance by the Regional Administrator.
Robert C. Miles, Director-Environmental Controls, UniRoyal,
MIddlebury, CN:
"Paragraph 403.6 (b), Pg. 6497 - An industrial dis-
charger who is called a requester may ask for a variance
90 days following the promulgation of a pretreatment standard.
In the rubber industry there are 1,189 fabricated rubber
products plants which generally discharge to POTW's and are
privately owned. The small ness of these operations tend
to preclude knowledge of EPA's activities in this area and,
therefore, timely response does not occur. EPA seldom
surveys this type of operation so that, statistically, an
element of fundamental difference from national pretreatment
standards may occur. This vexing problem requires special
consideration."
Paul C. Hittle, General Supervisor of Environmental Affairs,
Consumers Power Co., Jackson, MI:
"In a state which has an approved NPDES program, this
section would establish a three-level approval process for
industrial variances. Approval of a variance would be re-
quired by the State Director, the EPA Regional Administrator,
and the EPA National Administrator. Because of the possi-
bility of delay in securing all three approvals, the Company
recommends the inclusion of a 60-day time limit within which
the State Director and EPA Administrators must either approve
or disapprove complete variance requests. It is also recom-
mended that provisions be added to allow delegation of this
-------
-93-
"The Company also recommends that the time period
for the submission of supporting evidence for a variance
request be extended to at least 180 days, and that the
Regional Administrator or State Director be given the
authority to extend this period even further, when
individual circumstances justify such an extension.
Although a variance request could be made within the
90-day proposed period, adequate supporting evidence for
a variance request be extended to at least 180 days,
and that the Regional Administrator or State Director
be given the authority to extend this period even fur-
ther, when individual circumstances justify such an
extension. Although a variance request could be made
within the 90-day proposed period, adequate supporting
evidence for the request might in some cases not be
obtainable within the 90-day period. For example, the
acquisition of reliable supporting evidence could require
the purchase and installation of sampling and analytical
equipment and contracting of outside laboratory sources.
These activities could easily take 90 days to complete;
even if they required a lesser period there would be
little time to complete the necessary monitoring. In
many cases, however, a brief period would not adequately
cover the full range of a discharger's production acti-
vities, particularly if the period coincided with the
discharger's seasonably high or low production period."
-------
-95-
VII. DUPLICATION WITH EXISTING PRETREATMENT OR INDUSTRIAL SOURCE
CONTROL PROGRAMS.""
As stated in the February 2, 1977, Federal Register
(Part II), a secondary objective of developing a national pre-
treatment strategy "...is to begin to reconcile existing pretreat-
ment programs in many cities with the approach called for by the
Federal legislation." However, the proposed pretreatment standards
only stated the issue and addressed none of the complexities that
might be occasioned by their promulgation. Statements at the four
public hearings and in written comment submitted to EPA, support
this contention. The major concern expressed was that the proposed
regulations would cause duplication of facilities and in treatment
efforts of existing pretreatment and industrial source control
programs. Regulatory and enforcement conflicts, lack of mention of
industrial POTWs, additional financial burdens, and no discussion
of any EPA consideration of existing pretreatment efforts in
determining new pretreatment requirements were also highlighted as
problem areas. Discussion of these duplication issues are con-
tained on the following pages.
-------
-96-
A. The Pretreatment program does not account for anj^^onf]j_ct__wi_tjl
presently established local/state source control programs that may
or may not be more stringent.
Jack Barren, Department of Public Works, City of San Francisco,
CA:
"So no matter what you do, we are still going
to have a source control program. We can't avoid it.
"So in other words, we appear to have some dup-
lication. ..
"The other thing is that you look at it from indus-
try's point of view. We are working now with industry,
have them under permits, under orders to do certain
things for pretreatment.
"Now, it is possible that EPA will come along with
pretreatment standards and require — and we will have to
require industry to take a second run at this pretreatment
problem. And if they would have known originally how
much pretreatment they would have to install, they may
have addressed the issue in a very different manner.
They may have gone to an entirely different method of
manufacturing rather than attempt to eliminate some of
the constituents in the current method of manufacturing."
James B. Bewley, Superintendent, South Bayside System Auth-
ority, San Carlos, CA:
"...you must recognize that most local agencies that
have industrial problems have already begun a source
control program and in whichever of the choices you pick,
you want to make sure that you do not jeopardize any of
the progress that we have made."
Don T. Howell, Director of Utilities, Board of Light and-Water
Commissioners, Concord, NC:
"Pretreatment requirements as proposed represented
still another roadblock (to a Regional treatment plant).
As the development of the Concord Regional Plan matured,
using EPA's ever changing guidelines, primary clarifiers
with chemical precipitation were approved in the initial
grant application. After final plans and specifications
were prepared and approved, the primary clarifiers were
declared ineligible for grant participation. Local and
-------
-97-
industrial funds were secured to construct the primary
clarifiers to be used exclusively to remove industrial
pollutants. This entire cost is to be paid by the
affected industries. It is realized that additional
sludge is to be expected from facilities of this nature,
but at the same time dewatering and incineration faci-
lities are under construction to dispose of this sludge
in an environmentally acceptable manner. If facilities
such as these are to be duplicated at every industrial
plant, it will be impossible to be cost effective."
J.F. Cormack, Supervisor, Water Programs, Environmental
Services, Crown Zellerbach, Camas, WA:
"There is one important situation that is not
addressed in any of the options. This is the case where
a large industry has a combined treatment plant with a
small community. The nature of the final effluent
approaches that from the industry. These plants were
specifically constructed to achieve economy of operation
and to avoid duplicate facilities. The imposition of
pretreatment requirements is inappropriate in such
situations."
E. Ray Farley, Superintendent, Water and Sewer Department,
Lewisburg, TN:
"Why should incompatible wastes be handled differ-
ently from compatible wastes—where, through ordinance,
local POTW's require pretreatment when the POTW's efflu-
ent standard is endangered? The basic goal of PL 92-500
is unpolluted water. The only dischargers affecting
receiving waters are direct dischargers—point source and
POTW's We lose sight of the real goal at times. It
would appear that EPA regulation of indirect dischargers
is regulation for the sake of_ regulation."
James W. Scanlan, Assistant Chief, Facilities, Bureau of Water
Quality Control, Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix,
AZ:
"Secondary Objective is to reconcile existing
pretreatment programs in many cities. This should not be
a Federal objective. It seems that the local authorities
should be able to develop what programs they want. Some
programs may be very restrictive because they don't want
a lot of water-using industries, others might be very
liberal so they can attract those industries. Therefore,
the primary objective is very important; the secondary
objective stated above seems to infringe on our compe-
titive systems."
-------
-98-
Karol M. Enferadi, Chairwoman, Industrial Wastewater Sub-
committee, California Water Pollution Control Association,
Pasadena, CA:
"Existing source control programs currently are
being developed and enforced within the represented
region under the NPDES permit system. There permits also
require enforcement of EPA Standards when promulgated.
It appears to date that none of EPA's standards are more
restrictive than all of the represented local agencies
enforced standards.
"An approved local source control program is the
most efficient way of meeting water quality standards.
Option II is, therefore, most compatible with the exis-
ting structure."
Nicholas J. Lardieri, Director-Environmental Resources, Scott
Paper Co., Philadelphia, PA:
"We believe that EPA should take no action in the
pretreatment area which would unduly jeopardize existing
joint municipal-industrial treatment or inhibit further
development of such systems. The desirability of joint
treatment is a clearly stated policy of PL 92-500 which
we strongly endorse. Joint treatment facilities result
in economies of scale, elimination of multiple treatment
sites and minimize required regulatory surveillance.
Pretreatment regulations should be desiqned to preserve
these advantages by encouraqinq local enforcement fo the
least possible number of Federal pretreatment standards."
B. The Pretreatment Regulation fail to recognize the difference between
a "municipal" POTW designed to treat normal domestic sewage, and an
"industrial" POTW designed specifically to treat industrial wastes.
Joe P. Teller, Deputy General Manager, Gulf Coast Waste Dis-
posal Authority, Houston, TX:
"The proposed Pretreatment Standards regulation
assumes that all Publicy Owned Treatment Works (POTW's)
are conventional biological treatment facilities, and,
even further, frequently refers to them as "municipal."
For example: "These standards known as prohibited
discharge standards, are designed to prevent inhibition
or interference with the municipal treatment works...."
(Fed. Reg. Vol. 42, No. 22, p. 6478); "The Agency will
consider the effects of industrial wastes on the muni-
cipal sewer system " (Fed. Reg. Vol. 42, No. 22,
p. 6478); and "To be more specific regarding this as-
sumption EPA would assume that the POTW is one of a
group or family of biologic treatment processes which are
commonly used in the treatment of normal municipal
sewage " (Fed. Reg. Vol. 42, No. 22, p. 6480).
-------
-99-
"This ^assumption, Which is apparent throughout the
proposed regulations, is not valid in all instances.
Existing facilities, specifically designed to treat
industrial wastes and owned by public entities, are in
operation now and have been for some time....
"There is clearly a distinct difference between a
municipal POTW and an industrial POTW, yet no distinction
is found in the proposed regulations. To overlook these
differences would be a direct disservice to water quality
management, and would pose a totally unnecessary finan-
cial and technical burden on those parties involved."
J.F. Cormack, Supervisor, Crown Zellerbach Environmental
Services, Camas, WA:
"There is one important situation that is not
addressed in any of the options. This is the case where
a large industry has a combined treatment plant with a
small community. The nature of the final effluent
approaches that from the industry. There plants were
specifically constructed to achieve economy of operation
and to avoid duplicate facilities. The imposition of
pretreatment requirements is inappropriate in such
situations. Such plants should have the option of being
regulated under the appropriate industry limits or by
these regulations."
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX:
"We also recommend that the regulations be drafted
to exempt publicly-owned treatment works that are speci-
fically designed, constructed, and operated to provide
regional treatment of industrial waste such as the plants
operated by the Gulf Cost Waste Disposal Authority and
the Lower Neches Valley Authority in Texas. Major
reductions in the pollutant loads on the Houston Ship
Channel and the Lower Neches River have been realized by
these systems. It is our belief that the pretreatment
rules as they have been proposed will jeopardize the
future of these systems like them if they are affected by
the regulations just as any other publicly-owned treat-
ment works would be."
Frank J. Krasofski, Vice President, James River Fitchburg,
Inc., Fitchburg, Inc., Fitchburg, MA:
"No distinction is made between a municipal treat-
ment facility designed primarily for domestic wastes and
a facility primarily designed as a joint municipal-
industrial system capable of processing industrial wastes,
-------
-100-
"The city of Fitchburg operates two waste treatment
plants; the West plant was designed to accept and process
all industrial wastes from the various paper companies in
the area, including James River-Fitchburg. The plant was
designed in conjunction with the paper companies, and
funded by these companies, along with the city of Fitchburg.
"Because the plant has already been designed for
industrial wastes, pretreatment regulations for industry
feeding wastes to the plant would be an unwarranted and
unjustified cost burden of duplicated effort."
Elaine Fielding, Legal Dept., Clark Oil & Refining Corp., Blue
Island, IL:
"First, there seems to be an unarticulated and over-
generalized hostility to POTWs serving the function of a
central mechanism for the treatment of industrial waste-
water. There may be some basis for this in a locality
where the POTW is geared exclusively or primarily to
treat residential and commercial wastes, and not the more
esoteric industrial wastes. However, we strongly believe,
as discussed more fully below, that explicit recognition
should be given to those highly industrialized areas in
which the POTW is not only equipped to, but is desirous
of treating industrial wastes, if it can demonstrate that
it will do so in an environmentally sound manner. This
is obviously the situation in the Chicago area where the
MSDGC treats the wastes of 6000 industrial facilities,
and we imagine the same is true in many other areas of
the nation too."
Robert C. Miles, Director-Environmental Control, UniRoyal,
Middlebury, CN:
"Furthermore each POTW represents an engineering
design for] the community it serves, including the indus-
trial customer. Many POTW's are designed to handle
industrial process wastes and therefore pretreatment
regulations could be counterproductive. At one of our
facilities we discharge high levels of phosphorous which
helps the POTW meet the P/BOD ratio with a minimum of
nutrient addition. Some industrial discharges have
abnormal pH values in their discharges but mixing in the
collection works results in a neutral pH at the treatment
works.''
C. Experience with existing industrial source control or pretreatment
programs forms a basis for determining the necessity or desirability
of new or duplicative pretreatment requirements.
Jack Barron, Division Engineer, Industrial Waste Division,
Department of Public Works, San Francisco, CA, Response to
question at San Francisco Public Hearing:
-------
-101-
"I can't answer as to what the smaller communities
can or cannot do. I think it would have to be based on
each individual community. But I think we could carry
out this program that you are mentioning in a reasonable
time and probably carry it out as quick or quicker and
more efficiently than we could if we had to rely on EPA
pretreatment standards, which will also have to probably
be included with our source control program, because --
I'm second-guessing you here. Maybe I'm not doing this
correctly -- but I think that you are going to put those
same controls for those same contaminants in our NPDES
permit, and if you do, then we face the problem that you
are mentioning, whether or not you issue the pretreatment
standards."
N.L. Martin, James River-Massachusetts, Inc., Fitchburg, MA;
"In 1972, the paper mills committed themselves to
capital and fixed operating costs (for a treatment plant
designed specifically to treat paper mill effluents as
discharged) for ten years after startup plus all of the
operating and maintenance costs based upon Solids, Flow,
and BOD of water treated.
"The paper mill's commitments for ten years through
1985 was made expressly to allow us to discharge untreated
waters to a municipal plant and achieve the required
degree of treatment. A pretreatment provision in the
commitment required the mills to bear full costs for
pretreatment facilities required.
"We are, therefore, opposed to the imposition of
further pretreatment requirements on mills which dis-
charge into municipal plants when the required degree of
treatment is achieved."
Larry G. Lawson, Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond,
VA, Statement at Washington, D.C., Public Hearing:
"We recognize that all the on-going pretreatment
programs (nationally) are not the same nor are they at
the same level of development and we have only presented
Virginia's program as one example, however, we believe
that before significant mandatory modifications to
40 CFR 128 are made serious consideration must be given
to existing pretreatment programs."
-------
-102-
T.O. Andrews, Manager, Environmental Protection, Hammermill
Paper Company, Erie, PA:
"We believe that there are specific instances where
water quality standards can be maintained without the
requirement of pretreatment by specific industries
through locally derived water quality based pretreatment
limits. We do not believe the selection of options
should be so rigid so as to preclude sensible courses of
action such as the above.
"In any selection of a pretreatment scheme care
should be exercised to prevent a confrontation between
industry and the operators of publicly owned treatment
works. The benefits of toxic substance control could be
lost."
Edward E. Phillips, Director of Public Works, City of Hayward,
CA:
"We feel that Option II allows the greatest possible
flexibility with respect to source control programs.
Specifically, it would permit Municipal sanitation agencies
currently operating under NPDES permit with approved
source control programs, to continue the orderly admini-
stration of these programs without having to impose
federal technology-based standards on their industrial
dischargers. In many cases, the imposition of these
technology-based standards would only result in duplicity
of efforts, added cost to industry, and no significant
improvement in the quality of the receiving waters. As
in our case, any NPDES approved local source control
program should and would contain wastewater discharge
standards designed and tailored to protect the operation
of the specific publicly owned treatment works and insure
compliance with NPDES permit conditions and limits
established for the particular discharge."
E.D. Blum, Coordinator, Environmental Programs, Union Oil
Company of California, Los Angeles, CA:
"Union Oil and its subsidiaries operate a refinery,
a fertilizer complex and other smaller facilities in the
Los Angeles area. These facilities all discharge their
wastewaters to the various local Sanitation Districts
(i.e., Joint Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
Los Angeles City Sanitation District, Orange County
Sanitation District).
-------
-103-
"These districts all have pretreatment programs in
existence with stringent but achievable pretreatment
standards. We understand that some of the pretreatment
requirements imposed on our facilities are necessary to
protect operation of the treatment plants while others
are water quality based limits necessary to meet the
requirements of the California Ocean Plan.
"We recognize the likelihood that all local districts
throughout the country may not have the capabilities of
the districts in the Los Angeles area. In these cases,
the Federal pretreatment standards mandated by the Water
Pollution Control Act appear to be appropriate. Any such
Federal pretreatment standards should be based on a
combination of pretreatment technology reasonably available
to the indirect discharger plus removal capabilities of
publicly owned treatment works. It is essential that
such pretreatment standards be carefully designed to
prevent duplication of treatment facilities between the
indirect discharger and the publicly owned treatment
works."
Mark A. Pisano, Executive Director, Southern California Assoc.
of Governments, Los Angeles, CA:
"As you know, the larger sanitation agencies in Southern
California, wich serve major industries such as the electro-
plating ndustry, have done a capable job overall in design-
ing and implementing local pretreatment programs. The local
programs consist of ordinances controlling discharges to
municipal sewers, discharge permits which specify discharge
limitations, user charges, inspection and monitoring pro-
visions, and fees for noncompliance with permit conditions.
These local pretreatment programs involve "good housekeeping"
techniques by industrial dischargers and, where necessary,
pretreatment equipment. The local pretreatment programs
are making significant progress in allowing sanitation agen-
cies to meet NPDES limitations based on current EPA and
State requirements on toxic pollutant discharges.
"In light of the demonstrated pretreatment capabilities
of the major sanitation districts in Southern California,
SCAG supports local development and enforcement of pretreat-
ment standards, with nationally-developed, uniformly applied
pretreatment standards applied only if EPA judges local
pretreatment programs to be adequate. SCAG supports water
quality-based variances, on a jurisdictional rather than
pollutant-by-pollutant basis, with national pretreatment
standards for the most serious industries and toxic pollu-
tants being developed as in Option 3 and applied unless
a water quality variance is granted."
-------
-104-
C.R. Calkins, Vice President-Environment Affairs, American
Paper Institute, Inc., Washington, D.C.
"A number of local authorities already have imple-
mented fully adequate and effective pretreatment programs.
A national pretreatment program will be more easily and
effectively begun if these local programs are allowed
to continue without an excessive "over-lay" of new federal
standards and requirements."
Nicholas J. Melas, President, The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago, Chicago, IL:
"Presently, there are numerous local agencies with
effective industrial waste control programs which account
for a significant percentage of the nation's industrial
dischargers. As an example, the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC) which serves approxi-
mately 12% of the total number of industrial dischargers
in the nation has had an active industrial waste control
program since 1969. The efforts of the local agencies
should not be delayed or negated by Federal regulations
but instead should be assisted in continuing their efforts.
The objective should be the expansion of local programs
and not the development of a whole new set of programs."
-------
-105-
VIII. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS -
Analysis of the public hearing transcripts and written
materials ubmitted to EPA indicated widespread concern exists,
among the municipalities required to design and implement pretreat-
ment programs and the industrial discharges who must absorb pre-
treatment costs, that promulgation of pretreatment requirements
will engender significant economic impacts for both sectors.
Economic areas of concern to local governments stem from
their responsibility for designing and administering pretreatment
programs. A municipality :must enforce whatever pretreatment
standards are necessary to meet the requirements, prevent violations,
minimum sludge disposal costs, protect their systems from industrial
waste damage, etc. Consequently, there are two fundamental economic
elements to municipal pretreatment programs: 1) the cost of surveying,
monitoring and analyzing industrial wastes discharged into the
local sewer system, and 2) the cost of administering and regulating
the program.
The nature of the pretreatment cost impacts on industrial
dischargers focuses on several factors: the costs of the pretreatment
(or self-treatment) facility; the particular industries and pollutants
requiring regulation; individual plant size, age and operating efficiency;
production process; capital structure and profitability; and financing
mechanisms. The interrelationships between these economic factors
are extremely complex, especially when one considers that there are
substantial economies of scale to most pollution abatement processes
(particularly when end-of-pipe treatment is employed). Hence, the
average abatement cost for larger firms is much lower than that for
smaller firms. Additionally, larger firms often have better access
-------
-106-
to tax exempt financing, which provides an important subsidy for pollution
abatement investments.
Comments directly addressing the institutional and industrial
economic impacts of the proposed pretreatment regulations are documented
on the following pages.
A. The cost effectiveness of the pretreatment standards should
be the prime substantive factor in formulating the final
regulations.
Charles J. Henry, Director, Water Pollution Control, Muni-
cipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA:
"Pretreatment standards should be established on the
basis of cost effectiveness. Although such analyses are
recognized in the regulations, there has been an historic
tendency to establish treatment requirements on the
technical basis of capability rather than need. Full
consideration of energy and other resource consumption,
water quality needs and economic impacts should be strongly
stressed to prevent unnecessarily restrictive standards
and treatment requirements.
"Option three represents the most practical approach
in this respect since it recognizes primary need to con-
centrate on the major dischargers and most hazardous
pollutants."
Joe P. Teller, Deputy General Manager, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal
Authority, Houston, TX:
"This assumption, which is apparent throughout the
proposed regulations, is not valid in all instances.
Existing facilities, specifically designed to treat
industrial wastes and owned by public entities, are in
operation now and have been for some time. Should recognition
not be given to those industrial POTW's, serious economic
and technical disadvantages would be immediately forthcoming.
For example, Section 403.4(f) of the proposed regulation
(Fed. Reg. Vol. 42, No. 22, p. 6497) would prohibit
influent to a POTW in excess of 40° C (104°F). An
industrial POTW, designed in accordance with sound engineering
practices, would provide facilities to cool these wastes
in order to provide efficient treatment in the plant. An
existing facility which had provided the cooling phase
would find itself with a capital expenditure item not
needed, and the industry discharging the waste would be
required to construct a cooling phase. This is clearly a
waste of capital. Other examples are known to exist,
such as the planned commingling of wastes with extreme
-------
-107-
variations in pH, giving a resultant mix of the optimum
pH without the addition of neutralizing chemicals.
"There is clearly a distinct difference between a
municipal POTW and an industrial POTW, yet no distinction
is found in the proposed regulations. To overlook these
differences would be a direct disservice to water quality
management, and would pose a totally unnecessary financial
and technical burden on those parties involved."
Charles A. Geisler, Sanitation Engineer, City of Omaha,
NB:
"Consider all the pretreatment program standards and
the situation where a company can jump from one area to
another based on Industrial Cost Recovery charges. This
in turn could cause overloading of existing facilities
and NPDES limits or losing a paying customer.
"Is each violation a separate offense and punishable
or can they (industry) just dump it all if they're going
to pay a $1,000 fine anyway. Must a company shutdown and
close immediately if one of the EPA limits is violated?
If it is to be enforced by ordinance, it must state
clearly when this is to be the case. The statement "when
it endangers health" is too general and not definable.
"If the POTW has only primary treatment facilities,
does this mean the pretreatment standards imposed on
industry would be those of a new point source not dumping
into a POTW? If this is true, would there be a need for
ICR charges?"
John G. Costello, Executive Director, Bergen County Sewer
Authority, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"...The Sewer Authority feels that local agencies
should be responsible for enforcement of pretreatment
regulations because they are closer to the problem and
are familiar with local conditions and would thus be
better able to implement this program. However, because
the potential exists for many legal challenges by industry
and the legal fees resulting from extensive litigation
could be prohibitive, the Authority feels that it is
essential that Federal agencies provide strong backup,
upon request by the Authority, at such time that we are
faced with recalcitrant violators. This topic is one of
our greatest concerns and cannot be emphasized enough.
Without strong Federal backup available, most local
agencies could simply not afford the financial impact of
an effective pretreatment program."
-------
-108-
B. The cost to local government for administering a POTW's pretreatment
program will be exceedingly expensive.
Timothy L. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX,
Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"The day-to-day administration of the programs
envisioned by your proposed rules will be extremely
expensive. For instance, our experience with compliance
monitoring which is comparable to that being proposed in
these rules indicates that an average environmental
technician working for about $14,000 a year can effectively
keep up with about 30 industries a year. If you take
that salary figure and apply a 30% factor for salary cost
and a 2.25 factor for overhead and support cost, you will
find that your pretreatment program costs about $1,365
per industry per year. Considering that there are 55,000
such industries nationally, that means that the cost to
the local government for administering the program you
have proposed will run about $75 million annually nationwide.
That is an expensive water pollution control program. It
is particularly expensive when you realize that the
average cost to the industry begin regulated exceeds $100
each month."
Frank Dryden, Head, Technical Services Department, Sanitation
District of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA, Response to
Question at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"I would say in our own case, in 1970 while we
were running the rather cursory type protective system
programs that have been historic, we had a very small
staff devoted to source control, approximately five
inspectors and two engineers. We now have 13 or 14
inspectors, plus the availability of the county engineers,
inspectors, and we have a staff of about 40, most of whom
are engineers, involved in our industrial waste program.
"The cost is half a million to a million dollars a
year type program. That covers everything we do now.
It's not -- It's not an expensive program. It is, and
properly should be, covered by the charges to industries
that cover our system. Because it is not an inexpensive
program, we really don't like having to do anything more
than we can show needs to be done."
Don T. Howell, Director of Utilities, Board of Light and Water
Commissioners of the City of Concord, Concord, NC:
"We in the City of Concord, North Carolina have
been working for more than five years attempting to
-------
-109-
produce and construct a regional treatment
plant. Exhaustive efforts have gone into d^/eloping a
program that wiTl benefit all sections of our county
(Cabarrus). With the enactment of PL 92-500 everyone had
the feeling that the battle had been won and we were at
last on the way to cleaning up the environment. Great
strides have been made, but roadblock after roadblock has
caused delays and increases in projected costs.
"Pretreatment requirements as proposed represented
still another roadblock. As the development of the
Concord regional plan matured, using EPA's ever changing
guidelines, primary clarifiers with chemical precipita-
tion were approved in the initial grant application.
After final plans and specifications were prepared and
approved, the primary clarifiers were declared ineligible
for grant participation. Local and industrial funds were
secured to construct the primary clarifiers to be used
exclusively to remove industrial pollutants. This entire
cost is to be paid by the affected industries. It is
realized that additional sludge is to be expected from
facilities of this nature, but at the same time dewatering
and incineration facilities are under construction to
dispose of this sludge in an environmentally acceptable
manner. If facilities such as these are to be duplicated
at every industrial plant, it will be impossible to be
cost effective."
Robert R. Matthews, Manager, Water and Sewer Commission, City
of Freeport, IL:
"We are a certified municipal laboratory and POTW
that are presently running an extensive monitoring program,
sometimes successfully, and sometimes not. Industry in our
city is responsive to our requirements and we are probably
an excellent candidate for a local compliance program,
whichever option you may choose. I do not take exception
to the proposed regulations but I do raise the question
of how to pay for the local government participation.
"Sections 201 and 208 are not enough. Construction
grants are necessary when facilities are built, but by
and large the thrust of these regulations will be on
municipalities with already built facilities. Indeed
in strict interpretation a local compliance program would
require this. Therefore, E.P.A. should consider some
sort of remuneration to the municipality that is opera-
ting a certified monitoring and laboratory program in
the form of an operating grant. The administration
could be simply tied to the local compliance program
application and approval. In my opinion, the success
of the proposed regulations depends on this provision."
-------
-no-
Robert G. O'Dette Environmental Engineer, Statement at Washington,
D.C. Public Hearing:
"The disregard for many economic considerations,
from an engineering and consumer point of view is most
distressing. The only costs mentioned in the Register
were $15 to $85 million for reporting requirements, and
less than $1 million for compliance. The following
conservative estimate will show that actually this cost
may well exceed $300 million for compliance alone ...
"Under the new regulation, pretreatment will be
required regardless of flow, and with very little consideration
for economic impact. Although it is difficult *to generalize
a cost for the physical-chemical pretreatment works, an
engineering estimate of amortized capital costs, operation,
and maintenance, chemical and power costs would be about
$50,000 per year for ten years.
"There are over 400 POTW's in the State of Tennessee
alone. If only half these municipalities had only one
industry, similar to the one described that would be
affected by the change in regulations, the cost in Tennessee
alone would be $10 million. Considered over the 50
states, the cost could exceed $300 million, and this is a
very, very conservative estimate, I believe.
"EPA further states that an economic impact analysis
will be performed for each pretreatment regulation when
it is prepared and promulgated. I contend that economic
evaluation at this time is too late. It is conceivable
that the economic impact of any one subcategory regulation
may not exceed the $100 million; however, a total economic
impact of the overall program could be devastating."
W.C. Trefz, Chief Engineer, Allegheny County Sanitary Authority,
Pittsburgh, PA:
"All options will require considerable local monitoring
and testing. All costs of local monitoring required for
this program should be reimbursed by EPA. This would
include cost of the system monitoring, sampling and lab
analysis. Our best estimate of the Alcosan (Allegheny
County Sanitary Authority) costs of the new regulations
for our system would be as follows:
One time initial expense for purchase of equipment $565,000.00
Estimated annual increased operating costs " $245,000.00"
-------
-111-
Gene B. Welsh, Chief-Water Protection Branch, Georgia
State Dept. of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA:
"The application and enforcement of a pretreatment
program under any of the options would be similar to
the NPDES program which we now administer with direct
industrial dischargers. However, the new program would
require an expenditure of resources at least equal
to and perhaps exceeding that of the industrial NPDES
workload in the State and therefore would require some
8 to 10 additional staff members in this agency to
administer it. We also believe that the programs out-
lined are so ambitious that EPA may have to double its
NPDES staff in order to administer the program. It is
folly to believe that the states or EPA could handle
these additional responsibilities without substantial
increase in staffs."
Gary F- Levy, Director, Jefferson County Dept. of Environmental
Quality, Louisville, KY:
"All of these functions create an additional cost to
the local authority because of the increase in manpower
requirements, the need for additional equipment, an increase
in support services such as laboratory analysis, the uti-
lization of legal counsel for enforcement activities, and
the increase in administrative services. Federal funds
apply only to the cost of initial program development.
The long term cost of operation and maintenance are to be
funded by the system users."
Mark S. Davis, Secretary, Technical Advisory Committee, India-
napolis Chamber of Commerce, Indianapolis, IN:
"It appears that the City of Indianapolis will be
required to expend approximately $600,000 in first year
start-up costs for an adequate industrial pre-treatment
program. This rough estimate indicates a substantial
need for additional federal assistance in the form of
a grant. I strongly suggest that these types of start-up
expenses are not an appropriate item for industrial cost
recovery, but rather should be funded solely by a first
year federal grant."
Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner, New York State Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany, NY:
"We estimate that there are 6,000 industries in the
State that have process wastewater discharges into POTW's
with a total combined flow also of 1 BGD. In summary
the pr.etreatment program in New York State will involve
approximately four (4) times the number of industries
-------
-112-
as the NPDES permit program with approximately the same
amount of flow as industrial facilities subject to NPDES
permits.
"To further assess the impact of the proposed regu-
lations, it is estimated that of the 6,000 industries dis-
charging to POTW's, we will have significant involvement
with approximately 3,000 because of the presence of incom-
patible pollutants. This general, but realistic, estimate
of the numbers of POTW's and industries involved, has led
us to conclude that financial aid and manpower resources
in excess of four (4) times that presently committed by
New York State to the implementation of the POTW and
industrial waste portion of the NPDES permit program
will be required. This estiamte does not include the
commitment of resources on the local level.
"This significant program implication requires that
New York State insist that sufficient funds be made available
for the establishment, implementation and continuation of
a pretreatment program."
Nicholas J. Melas, President, The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago, IL:
"A direct enforcement program by either the EPA or
the NPDES states would require an inordinate expenditure
of manpower and monies, and in many cases duplicate some
of the efforts of existing local industrial waste control
programs; e.g. sampling, compliance reviews. Even with
Federal enforcement programs the local authorities would
still have to carry out programs of their own to prevent
interference from non-regulated industries or pollutants
with the POTW's operation.
"As an example of the magnitude of proper enforcement
of a local industrial waste control (a pretreatment) program,
the MSDGC's program currently requires a staff of 100
full-time professional, technical and clerical employees
at an annual cost of about $2.5 million. This is to keep
account of approximately 6,000 concerns which discharge
liquid industrial wastes to the sewer system for treatment
in the MSDGC treatment plants."
Randy Laks, Jefferson County Sewer District, Louisville, KY,
Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"We have dorie some estimating. We are in this process,
going about this right now. So, we have some idea of what
it costs. We are projecting out that it's going to take
us about a year and a half to get around to 210 quote,
unquote, "major contributing industries." And the esti-
mated cost of this program, just going around and building
the data base, first time around the labor cost is some-
-------
-113-
where in the neighborhood of $600,000. We also need
some additional equipment, especially when you are
getting into the organic contents. The cost associated
with some of the additional equipment above of what we
already have would be about $220,000."
James Brannan, City of Ft. Smith, AK, Statement at Chicago
Public Hearing:
"Development of a local pretreatment program in
the equipment for and except in monitoring and enforcement
program will cost an estimated $80,000. This is the
initial cost. The estimated cost of a continuing program
of monitoring and enforcement is $30,000 per year."
Gene Jensen, Kansas State Bureau of Water Quality, Topeka, KA,
Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"Our estimate for Kansas is that if the State admin-
isters the program totally, or if some combination of
State and local government were to administer the program,
it would cost approximately $500,000 per year.
"We estimate that the cost of industry in Kansas,
and there are some 4,400 industries that would be regulated,
might amount to another two to 20 million dollars per
year.
"This sort of suggestion, nationally that the cost
might be in the nature of a quarter of a million dollars
and it might go four or five times that."
-------
-114-
C. The cost of pretreatment programs to industry could force,
plant relocations, unemployment, plant closings, dispropor-
tionate payments by certain industries of user charges and
and industrial cost recovery funds, etc.
Alan C. Van De Boe, Superintendent of Sanitation, City of
Quincy Sanitation Committee, Quincy, IL:
"A major concern involves the cost of providing pre-
treatment. If the pretreatment standards are too restrictive
causing an industry to construct and operate an expensive
pretreatment facility, it may be less expensive for that
industry to totally separate itself from the municipal
system, rather than pay for not only the pretreatment
facilities, but also the User charges and Industrial Cost
Recovery Charges mandated by Federal law. If an industry
were to separate from the municipal system, the User
charges paid by other industries and by residential users
would increase, perhaps causing other industries to reach
the point where it is cheaper to go it alone. From the
standpoint of financing the operation of a municipal
treatment facility, it is absolutely essential that as
many users as possible are served by the system. Restrictive
pretreatment standards encourage separation of industrial
users from municipal systems and are contrary to this
philosophy.
"One aspect of the proposed regulations would be of
great benefit namely, the use of part of the Industrial
Cost Recovery (ICR) funds to finance the development
and enforcement of locally-derived pretreatment
limits. One argument against local enforcement is
the general lack of funding at the local level for
such a program. Under the current regulations, 50%
of the amount of ICR funds collected is to be sent
to U.S. EPA, 40% is to be retained and placed into a
restricted account while the final 105 can be used
at the discretion of the municipality. The concept
of restricting some of the ICR funds for use only
for expansion or reconstruction of the municipal
treatment facilities is beneficial and should remain
at 40%. It is suggested that the amount of discretionary
funds be increased from 10% to 25% of the amount of
ICR funds collected. Since the ICR monies do come
from industrial users, they should be used to finance
the programs intended to regulate those same industrial
users. The 25% figure should generate sufficient
funds to effectively carry out a pretreatment program."
-------
-115-
C.J. Buschkill, Manufacturing Engineer, George Koch Sons,
Inc., Evansville, IN:
"A very small plater or other business, requiring
waste water treatment might be able to survive if it were
allowed to pay a surcharge to the local treatment fa-
cility to correct its deficiencies. This procedure,
placed within the judgement of a local governing body,
could respond to individual probabilities. The state and
certainly the federal level could never be adaptable to
the flexibility required for this possible approach."
Richard Wooley, Metal Finishing of Southern California,
Burbank, CA, Response to question at San Francisco Public
Hearing:
"...there was an area that was indicated on Page
6485 that no variance would be allowed unless the POTW
had complete secondary treatment.
"Now, as we discussed, there is a --there is a
timing problem there because of funding, engineering
considerations. A number of POTW's will not have secon-
dary treatment in force for several years. And if this
statement were followed exactly, it would mean that no
variance could be applied for until such secondary
treatment was, in fact, in full operation.
"This might require real capital expenditure by
industry for a matter of one, two or three years, and
then would no longer be necessary, and that would be an
unduly harsh economic impact."
Pearce Klazer, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
Rhode Island Department of Health, Statement at Boston Public
Hearing:
"...There are several serious concerns inherent in
the proposed pretreatment rules that in our opinion may
have the potential of reversing, rather than augmenting,
recent efforts to improve the quality of our nation's
waterways. For example, now with hefty industrial cost
recovery charges mandated by PL 92-500, municipal sewer
user charges and fees, now to be combined with pretreatment
requirements and costs, which may approach those of BAT,
there leaves little inducement for those industreies to
consider using or even remaining in municipal sewage
systems when instead they can obtain a NPDES permit and
treat their own wastes, and in doing so, be eligible for
an IRS write-off, SBA loans, a variety of state economic
development aid, as well as state sales tax and property
tax exemptions."
-------
-116-
Theodore Garrett, Counsel, National Association of Metal
Finishers, statement at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"The National Association of Metal Finishers repre-
spectrum of the electroplating and metal finishing industry.
Members of this industry, typically, are small firms in
urban areas, which of necessity discharge into municipal
treatment plants, and which have neither the physical
space nor the financial resources to install expensive
pretreatment technology.
"The Association justifiably fears that the promulgation
of pretreatment standards which are more stringent than
necessary, may sound a death knell for a large portion of
this industry."
Marvin Rivland, Counsel, Compliance Operations, City of
New York, New York, response to questions at Washington,
Public Hearing:
"Now, with respect to pretreatment standards, virtually
the only industry in New York which will be affected by
pretreatment standards will be the electroplating industry...
There are about 200 electroplaters. There were several
years ago. I have no reason to believe that that figure
has changed.
"Now, if strict standards are imposed, and thinking
in terms of the substantial background levels, if strict
standards are imposed upon this industry, we figure that
80 percent of them -- 80 percent -- will either have to
close up or move.
"The reason is not only financing, which is horrendous,
but also room, and you mentioned this in the discussion
of your February 2nd publication. There of these job
plating shops to install the kind of precipitation equipment,
if that is the best practical technology, and at present
I think it is. I have no reason to believe that reverse
osmosis, ion exchange has come into its own.
"It is chemical precipitation. There is no room
for the installation of this type of technology, the
equipment that goes with it. The industry would certainly
have to move, or members of the industry would have to
move.
"They would move to places where they could have
more land for the installation of the equipment. That
means to New York City a loss of 1,000 to 1,500 jobs."
-------
-117-
L.K. Duncan, Plant Manager, Davison Chemical Division, W.R.
Grace & Co., Chattanooga, TN:
"National technology-based pretreatment standards
are not mandated by PL 92-500, and would lead in many
instances to "pretreatment for treatment's sake", regardless
of POTW operations and effluent quality. The national
economic result of such measures would be of sufficient
magnitude to mandate national and regional Economic
Impact Analyses by the EPA. The adverse effect on national
energy resources would be enormous. A secondary ultimate
consequence would be withdrawal of many industries from
POTW systems in favor of direct stream discharge, thus
imposing severe future economic burdens on POTW's."
John J. Burnett, Director of Utilities, City of Niagara Falls,
NY:
"Please be advised that the city of Niagara Falls,
New York wishes to take a strong stand for pretreatment
standards similar to Option 3. The publicly owned treatment
works is in initial stages of the largest industrial
users. These 24 have contractural obligations to the
city for their proportionate shares of both capital
funding and operation and maintenance monies, since 1971
they have recognized their obligations for pretreatment
in order to conform to the local sewer ordinance, the
city is unalterably opposed to any opinion that may force
these industrial users to discontinue participation in
the local program for economic reasons."
Bruce D. Miller, Assistant Plant Manager, Kidde Chestnut
Operating Co., Reading, PA:
"Specifically we are a city based industry without
space to add pretreatment equipment, but our local P.O.T.W.
can and does handle our effluent properly on a surcharge
basis.
"We are satisfied, they are satisfied, and the
effluent leaving the P.O.T.W. is satisfactory.
"Pretreatment regulations would unnecessarily cause
jobs to be lost where a problem does not exist."
W.P. Anderson, Assistant Director, Environmental and Regula-
tory Affairs, Tenneco Chemicals, Saddle Brook, NJ:
"Development of the Federal Guidelines must also
consider that the typical plant discharging to a POTW is
an older and smaller plant located in a congested urban
area. Because of its location, it may not have the option
of discharging directly to public waters. Many such
plants have very limited space available for the construction
of extensive pretreatment facilities. Because of their
age and size, such plants are frequently marginal economic-
-------
-118-
ally, and, therefore, the addition of any cost burden
will be a very serious concern to them. Individual plant
economics, of course, cannot be allowed to rule out
treatment to the extent required, but should be weighed
very carefully in determining just what is required in
order to meet the objectives stated earlier. Treatment to
the extent possible within the limits of technology (for
the sake of treating to that extent) should not be required
unless it is necessary to achieve the objectives."
Marwan Sadat, Program Director, Office of Sludge Management
and Industrial Pretreatment, New Jersey Department of Environment,
Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"Option II and III place heavily industrialized
states in a difficult position. These options would
encourage shopping by industries wishing to relocate.
Many surface waters in these states are water quality
limited. And, therefore, would result in much more strin-
gent industrial water pretreatment standards. The
implications of the situation are quite obvious.
"Our problem in New Jersey, in the Northeast is
especially complex. Some authorities in New Jersey have
industrial discharges into municipal systems which number
in the hundreds. And, in one specific case upwards of
2,000 industries discharge into a single municipal system.
We estimate there are, in New Jersey, approximately
12,000 indirect dischargers while 900 industries discharge
directly in our streams. We must, therefore, carefully
consider which of these options could be easily developed
within our own legislative framework and which would be
most effective in achieving our water quality goals."
Allen R. Frischkorn, Jr., Attorney, GTE Service Corp., Washington,
D.C.:
"GTE is concerned that the imposition of mandatory
pretreatment standards on small concerns will cause such
concerns to go out of business. In accordance with
corporate policy, the GTE manufacturing companies attempt
to utilize small and emerging sources of supply wherever
practical. It is essential in our view that the agency
must not adopt pretreatment regulations which would be
burdensome to these small sources and for whom costs of
compliance would be prohibitive. In this same regard, we
note that plants which utilize a POTW incur substantial
costs through user charges, industrial cost recovery, ad
valorem taxation, property assessments, etc., none of
which are borne by direct dischargers."
-------
-119-
Thomas E. Roberts, Supervisor of Environmental Control,
Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., Louisville, KY:
"Economic Impact - The economic impact of a general
regulation that establishes ground rules and procedures
to be used to develop a national pretreatment program is
going to be significant. This new national pretreatment
program could easily cost CPSC $3 million to $4 million in
capital outlays and $0.5 to 1.0 million in annual operating
expenses, over what we would have to spend to comply with
existing POTW ordinances; and CPSC is just one small company.
An option, like IV, that requires redundant treatment
facilities could cost significantly more. We believe these
general regulations, no matter which option is selected,
definitely have a economic impact greater than $100 million
per year."
-------
-120-
D. The energy implications of implementing the pretreatment
program have not been investigated or quantified
E.F. Young, Director, Environmental Affairs, American Iron and
Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.
"The energy situation is another reason for flexibility.
The energy crunch has developed since enactment of Public
Law 92-500; while this in no way changes this law, energy
considerations must be given increased emphasis along
with the environmental considerations to achieve the
maximum social good. Providing flexibility to take into
account variations in POTW removals to meet water quality
standards, and getting standards for only the most significant
toxics, gives the greatest possible energy savings, as
there is not treatment for treatment's sake or just cause
we know how to treat--treatment is required only to
protect the POTW and maintain water quality. Management
of discharges and management of operation of POTW's
keyed to protecting the environment will give the best
return of investment and save the most energy, while
encouraging the treatment of industrial wastes in POTW's."
Timothy::!. Morris, Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, TX,
Statement at Chicago Public Hearing:
"Realizing that the resources of the regulatory
agencies are limited, that pretreatment systems will
place high demands on energy and other natural resources,
and considering what these programs will do to product
cost and other inflationary pressures, we believe very
strongly that prior to implementation of the program, its
cost must be very critically appraised in light of the
benefits to be derived."
Jack M. Betz, Director, Bureau of Sanitation, Los Angeles,
CA:
"To require the Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPTCTCA) when NPDES requirements
were already met would involve heavy expenditures of
energy which would be wasteful of resources and would add
further pollutants to the air, water and land environ-
ments.
"Cost effectiveness in terms of environmental improve-
ment involves balancing fund availability with needs in
terms of the control of possible pollutants to the air,
land or water. If NPDES requirements for POTW discharges
to the waters can be met with the changes outlined above,
it would not be a cost effective solution to require
BPCTCA. Estimates for the City of Los Angeles indicate
that satisfactory results can be obtained at about 25% of
the cost of BPTCTCA."
-------
-121-
Raymond Kudukis, President of the Board of Trustees, Cleve-
land, Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, OH, Statement
at Washington, D.C. Public Hearing:
"While in theory uniform nationwide technology-
based standards for each class and type of industry
may appear to be desirable, in reality, the nation at
this point in overally environmental benefits to be
achieved by this objective may not outweigh the total
costs.
"We, in the Mid-West, having faired the worst
winter on record, and having suffered severe energy
curtailments, are particularly sensitive and conscious
of energy problems. Therefore, we believe that energy
must be utilized in the most cost-effective manner,
and can find little justification for treatment for
the sake of treatment.
"I would like to see an energy impact statement,
in terms of any one of these projects."
Bill B. Dendy, Executive Officer, California State Water Re-
sources Control Board, Sacramento, CA:
"To require the equivalent effluent quality for dis-
charges to all water bodies, in our opinion, can represent
a substantial waste of the energy and other resources in
many cases. Regardless of its impact on the individual
industrial discharger, this is the sort of waste of resour-
ces that this country simply cannot afford."
Henry B. King, President, United Brewers Association, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.:
"The USBA believes that an Economic Impact Analysis
should be prepared prior to the issuance of final pre-
treatment regulations. Both the economic and energy
usage impacts of the proposed regulations need to be
fully explored and discussed. By the Agency's own ad-
mission the proposed national pretreatment program
dwarfs the NPDES Program. Although the proposed
40 CFR 403 alone may not result in economic and energy
impacts of sufficient magnitude to trigger an Economic
Impact Analysis Statement, it is the keystone of a
national pretreatment strategy which is actually being
established. While the numerous regulations governing
pretreatment for individual industry subcategories may
not justify an extensive analysis, certainly the program
as a whole does."
-------
-122-
E. What is the feasibility of implementing Industrial Cost
programs in small municipalities when its economic benefits
In liarge municipalities iare suspect?
Jack Barren, Division Engineer, Industrial Waste Division,
Department of Public Works, San Francisco, CA, Response to
question at San Francisco Public Hearing:
"I would like also to address the comments that you
solicited on the industrial cost recovery program. In
the case of San Francisco, our program for water pollution
is about $1.5 billion total at this time. And when you
look at the possible amount that can be recovered on an
industrial cost recovery basis, it's very negligible, and
I believe and I think very difficult to collect administratively
because, when you start to separate out domestic waste,
sanitary waste, etc., it would be very, very cumbersome.
"A large part of our program is for wet weather
handling because we have a combined system. On that
basis, I don't believe -- And I have no facts to back
this up at this time -- but it would seem that industry
may not be required to contribute very much under the
industrial cost recovery program be eliminated."
John G. Costello, Executive Director, Bergen County Sewer
Authority, NJ, Statement at Boston Public Hearing:
"An additional compliance incentive suggested is
to increase the present allocation of 10 percent of re-
covered industrial cost recovery payment which may be
used as the grantees sees fit that's 40 CFR 35.928-2 (B).
Upon completion of its current plant expansion from 50
million gallons to 75 million gallons the Bergen County
Sewer Authority, under its ICR Program, will recover
approximately $180,000 per year for 30 years. This would
result in an allocation of $18,000 per year to be used at
its discretion. However, the cost to operate the ICR
Program is estimated at $100,000 annually and the annual
cost of enforcing a pretreatment program is expected to
be at least $100,000. Therefore, we suggest that 100
percent of ICR payments be made available to local authorities
to use as they see fit. These funds would most likely be
applied to the combined cost of financing the ICR and
pretreatment programs. It must be recognized, however,
that any change in allocation of ICR payments may require
modification of Section 204(B) (3) and possibly other
sections of Public Law 92-500."
Raymond Kudukis, Presdient of the Board of Trustees, Cleveland
Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, OH, Statement at Washington
D.C., Public Hearing:
"As a positive incentive to those willing to accept
the burden of regulating industry within their system,
-------
-123-
and agreeing to maintain their POTW effluent within
EPA's limits, Public 92-500 should be changed to
permit them to retain 100 percent of all industrial
cost recovery monies collected, and to utilize these
monies for any wastewater related purposes. While
many may debate the merits of ICR, as long as it re-
mains a requirement, all monies collected should be
retained by the local agency."
Seymour A. Lubetkin, Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, NJ, Statement at Washington, D.C. Public
Hearing:
"This type of program will simplify things for the
federal government, but will add cost to the local
agency's administration. We, at PVSC, will undoubtedly
increase our staff by approximately 40 people on this
industrial control item alone, and we feel we should be
reimbursed by having 100 percent of the industrial cost
recovery monies being returned to us, to finance our
monitoring program, as I am not implying that monitoring
would be eliminated."
Karol Mi' Enferadi, Chairwoman, Industrial Wastewater Subcommittee,
California Water Pollution Control Association, Pasadena,
CAi
"Regarding the question of a possible increase in
the percentage of industrial cost recovery charges
collected that a grantee might be permitted to use for
any purpose, Subcommittee consensus is that publicly
owned treatment works be permitted to use, for any purpose,
100 percent of the funds collected. The local agency
could keep all recovered funds and channel monies back
into the local pretreatment program, thereby reducing
everyone's costs. Some represented agencies report that
the amount of monies under consideration is negligible
and that administrative costs often outweigh the value of
the current ten percent. Therefore, this Subcommittee
recommends that the Industrial Cost Recovery Program be
eliminated."
Roger E. Krempel, et. al., Water Utilities Director, Fort
Collins, CO:
"ICR funds is well intended, but the present ten
percent is not sufficient to finance existing ICR operating and
accounting expenses. To comment on an estimated increase
in retained funds to finance a proposed program, the
extent and demands of which are totally unknown, is
purely a guessing game. The fact that local municipali-
ties need a higher percentage of these ICR funds, with or
without this proposed pretreatment program, is a foregone
conclusion."
-------
-124-
William E. Korbitz, Manager, Metropolitan Denver Sewage
Disposal District No. 1, Denver, CO:
"In connection with industrial cost recovery, it
is suggested that the industrial cost recovery provisions
be eliminated from the Act. If this cannot be done,
a minimum of 50 percent of the recovered moneys should
be retained by the local agency to help cover the admin-
istrative costs of the ICR program."
L.A. Grosmaire, Chairman, Tennessee Manufacturers Association,
Nashville, TN:
"It is not readily understood how the Environmental
Protection Agency could say that the application of BAT
to the removal of the metals and other toxics concerned
in these regulations would be accomplished nationwide
for less than $100 million. In Tennessee alone, these
technology based standards would result in untold millions
of new capital dollars as estimated by the Tennessee
Department of Economic and Community Development. This
estimate extrapolated nationwide could result in billions
of dollars of unproductive capital added to industry costs.
We therefore urge the EPA to determine these economic costs
first in order to better evaluate a direction to proceed.
Since the separation processes required in pretreatment
have a significant energy need, this critical category
should also be evaluated prior to selection and promul-
gation of pretreatment requirements."
-------
-125-
LOG OF LETTERS WITH OPTION PREFERENCE AND MAJOR
POSITION ON:
PROPOSED STRATEGY OPTIONS FOR PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
(in alphabetical order)
Abraham, Milton E..Chairman, Industrial Liaison Committee, Niagara Falls
Area Chamber of Commerce, Niagara Falls, NY 14303 (dated: April 5,
1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Adams, William R., Jr., Commissioner, State of Maine, Dept. of Environmental
Protection, State House, Augusta, ME 04333 (dated: April 28,
1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers Utilization of existing NPDES system
Anderson, W.P., Assistant Director of Environmental and Regulatory
Affairs, Tenneco Chemicals, Park 80 Plaza West-1, Saddle Brook, NJ
07662 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Anderson, Jean, Chairman, Environmental Quality Committee, League of
Women Voters of the United States, 1730 M St., N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20036 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: I & IV Combination
Major Position: Concerned with sludge recycling
Andrews, T.O., Manager-Environmental Protection, Hammermill Paper Co.,
Erie, PA 16533 (dated: April 28, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with duplication with existing pretreatment
programs
Atherton, Holt, Chairman, Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, 602
E. Commerce, P.O. Box 1628, San Antonio, TX 78206 (dated: April
28, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Baker, William C., Director of Public Works, City of Burlington, Box
1358, Burlington, NC 27215 (dated: March 14, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-126-
Banks, J. Taylor, et. al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
917 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005 (dated: May 24, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with inadequacy of EPA's proposed
regulations
Barry, Donald R., Director of Industrial Relations, Industrial Management
Council of Rochester, N.Y., Inc., 12 Mortimer St., Rochester, NY
14604 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers national standards with local enforcement
Bassett, Gilbert W., Executive Director, Environmental Conservation
Board of the Graphic Communications Industries, Inc., 4615 Forbes
Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (dated: May 10, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards
Batchelor, William H., City Manager, Rocky Mount, NC 27801 (no date)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Bennett, Frank C., Chairman, Rochester Section Inc., American Chemical
Society, Rochester, N.Y. (dated: May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with certification of monitoring personnel
Benson, T.L., Jr., Vice President, Composite Can Div., 130 S. Bemiston
Ave., Clayton, MO 63105 (dated: May 4, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Berle, Peter A.A., Commissioner, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
50 Wolf Rd., Albany, NY 12233 (dated: March 7, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Prefers addition of variance for incidental removals
Best, Charles W., Sr. Chemical Engineer, J.H. Baxter & Co., 1700 S. El
Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402 (dated: April 25, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality variances
Betts, C. Nevin, Hi rector-Environmental Activities, Sonoco Products Co.,
Hartsville, SC 29550 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: No rational
-------
-127-
Betz, Jack M. Director, Dept. of Public Works, City of Los Angeles,
Rm 1140, 200 N. Main St., Los Angeles, CA 90012 (dated: March 31,
1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Beweley, James B., Superintendent-Water Quality Control, South Bayside
System Authority, 666 Elm St., San Carlos, CA 94070 (dated: May
13, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Biros, John A., Village of North Tarrytown, Dept. of Water and Sewer,
28 Beekman Avenue, N. Tarrytown, NY 10591 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Bisco, Harry, P.E., Director of Operations, City of Allentown, PA, 18101
(dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers Federal standards and local control
Blabum, Carl J., Director, State of Wisconsin, Dept. of Natural Resources,
Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 (dated: May 5, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Bliss, Frederick R., Technical Manager, Strathmore Paper Co., Westfield,
MA 01085 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Prefers local control
Bloch, Ethyle R., Co-Chairman, Clean Water Committee, Izaak Walton
League of America Inc., Ft. Wayne Chapter, IWLA, 6340 Donna Dr.,
Ft. Wayne IN 46819 (dated: May 4, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concern with environment through strong pretreatment
program
Blum, E.D., Coordinator-Environmental Programs, Union Oil Co. of Calif.,
Union Oil Center, Box 7600, Los Angeles, CA 90051 (dated: April
29, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality variances
-------
-128-
Boecklin, George E., President, National Coffee Assoc. of U.S.A., Inc.,
120 Wall Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10005 (dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Booman, Keith A., Ph.D., Technical Director, Soap and Detergent Assoc.,
475 Park Ave. South, N.Y., NY 10016 (dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: Combination of II and III
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards
Boone, Eugene, President, John Inglis Frozen Foods Company, P.O. Box
311, Modesto, CA 95353 (dated: April 14, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Increase time frame
Borchardt, Robert J., Chief Engineer and General Manager, Metropolitan
Sewerage Dist. of the County of Milwaukee, P.O. Box 2079, Milwaukee,
MI 53201 (dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards
Boruszewski, Robert J., P.E., Director of Public Works, Calhoun County,
County Bldg., Marshall, MI 49069 (dated: May 12, 1977)Bowman,
Robert K., Vice President-General Manager, Consumers Packing
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Bowman, Robert K., Vice President-General Manager, Consumers Packing
Plum & Liberty Sts., Lancaster PA 17604 (dated: April 12, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Brehm, Stuart H., Jr., Executive Director, Sewerage and Water Board of
New Orleans, City Hall, Civic Center, New Orleans, LA 70165
(dated: April 12, 1977)
Option Preference: II and IV
Major Position: Concerned with costs
Breimhurst, Louis J., P.E., Director, Div. of Water Quality, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, 1935 W. County Rd. B2, Roseville, MN
55113 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: I or that submitted by the State of Tennessee
Major Position: Does not prefer water quality standards
-------
-129-
Brokaw, Newton A., Executive Director, Columbus Industrial Assoc.,
1515 West Lane Ave., Columbus, OH 43221 (dated: May 5, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Brubaker, B.H., Special Assistant to the Director of Safety and Environmental
Engineering, Diamond Shamrock Corp., 1100 Superior, Cleveland, OH
44114 (dated: May 2,1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers control of only the most toxic pollutants.
Bruce, Thomas K., Director, Division of Water Resources, City of Durham,
Durham, NC (dated: May 5, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Bruder, K.W., General Manager, Fresh Meats Co., P.O. Box 2568, San
Antonio, TX 78299 (dated: April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Burnett, John J., Director of Utilities, City of Niagara Falls, NY
(dated: May 1, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concern with interference with local treatment
programs
Busch, William H., R.E., Manager-Permit Section, Div- of Water Pollution
Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill
Rd., Springfield, IL 62706 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefer water quality variances
Buschkill, C.J., Manufacturing Engineer, Geo. Koch Sons, Inc., P.O. Box
351, Evansville, IN 47744 (dated: March 24, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Calkins, C.R., Vice President-Environmental Affairs, American Paper
Institute, 1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
(dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Campbell, H.J., Jr., Engineering Service Div., E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co., Inc., Wilmington, DE 19898 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Postion: Prefers local control
-------
-130-
Casazza, Joseph F., Commissioner of Public Works, City of Boston, One
City Hall Square, Boston, MA 02201 (dated: April 8, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with.costs
Chaddock, R.E., Executive Director of Environmental Affairs, Hercules
Inc., Wilmington, DE 19899 (dated: March 22, 1977)
Option Preference: III ;;
Major Position: Prefers local control
Chambers, John T., Jr., P.E., Administrator-Construction Grants Unit,
Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration, Dept. of
Health, P.O. Box 60630, New Orleans, LA 70160 (dated: May 9,
1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Charles, F.M, Corporate Director-Environmental Affairs, Union Carbide
Corp., 270 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards
Chase, Edith, Environmental Director, League of Women Voters of Ohio,
5731 Caranor Drive, Kent, OH 44240 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Supports Federally promulgated technology standards
Chu, Joseph P., and Philip E. Gerwert, Environmental Activities Staff, GM
Technical Center, General Motors Corp., Warren, MI 48090 (dated:
May 10, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Discusses the establishment of effluent limitations
in pretreatment requirements
Civins, Jeffrey, Vinson and El kins, Attorneys at Law, First City National
Bank Bldg., Houston, TX 77002
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with POTW is designed to treat industrial
wastes
Clark, Albert C., Vice President-Technical Director, Manufacturing
Chemists Assoc., 1825 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20009 (dated: April 11, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
-------
-131-
Clark, Paul F., Commissioner, City of Chattanooga, Dept. of Public
Works, Chattanooga, TN 37402 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: Supports State of Tennessee
Major Position: Prefers strong local control
Cockrell, Lila, Mayor, City of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78205
(dated: April 25, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Conway, W.G.,Loop Cold Storage Co., Southton and Center Rds., P.O. Box
179 San Antonio, TX 78217 (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers wate quality variances
Coppoc, W.J., Vice President-Environmental Control, Texaco Inc., P.O.
.Box 509, Beacon, NY 12508 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
Corbeil, R.J., Manager of Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas
Co., 810 S. Flower St., Los Angeles, CA 90017 (dated: May 16,
1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Cormack, J.F., Supervisor, Water Programs, Crown Zellerbach, Environmental
Services, 904 N. Drake St., Camas, WA 98607 (dated: April 14,
1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Courtney, Stephen M., Technical Director, Menominee Paper Co., Inc.,
P.O. Box 300, Menominee, MI 49858 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards be included
Cousineau, John A., Manager, Townsend Div. of Textron Inc., 1224 E.
Warner Ave., Box 2157, Santa Ana, CA 92707 (dated: April 6,
1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Crane, Larry E., Executive Director, Iowa Dept. of Environmental Quality,
3920 Deleware Ave., P.O. Box 3326, Des Moines, IA 50316 (dated:
May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Prefers State control
-------
-132-
Crutcher, Bruce S., Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, Cincinnati,
OH (dated: April 21, 1977)
Option Preference: Combination of II & IV
Major Position: Split options to provide equity between small
and large municipalities
Cummings, David, Chief Chemist, Tri-Aid Sciences, Inc., 161 Norris Dr.
Rochester, NY 14610 (dated: April 7, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with certification of monitoring personnel
Curran, Robert F., Director-Environmental Technology, CIBA-GEIGY, Ardsley,
NY 10502 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Custis, Glenn W., P.E., Environmental Engineer, Environmental Control Dept.,
Reynolds Aluminum-Reynolds Metals Co., Richmond, VA, 23261 (dated:
May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers use of water quality criteria
Daleiden, Mary and Joseph, 2715 Harrison St., Evanston, IL 60201 (No
date)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with environment
Davis, Mark S., Secretary, Technical Advisory Committee, Indianapolis Chamber
of Commerce, 320 N. Meridian, St., Indianapolis, IN 46204 (dated:
May 12, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Davoli, Dr. Dana J., Director of Toxic Substances Research, Citizens for
a Better Environment, Suite 2610, 59 E. Van Buren St., Chicago,
IL 6060 (dated: May 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with the environment and EPA adhering to
the Consent Decree
De Gennaro, K.E., Manager-Environmental Engineering and Control, Western
Electric, 222 Broadway, NY, NY 10038 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Prefer local control with water quality standards
-------
-133-
Dendy, Bill B., Executive Officer, State Water Resources Control Board
State of California , P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95801 (dated:
May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Concerned with complexity of the regulations;
prefers water quality standards, and local control
DiGuiseppi, David, Assoc., Regional Plnr., Central Mass Regional Planning
Planning Comm., 70 Elm St., Worcester, MA 01609 (No date)
Option Preference: Combination of I & IV
Major Position: Concern for participation by 208 agencies
Dohmus, Stanley D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Office
of the Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20240 (dated: April 14, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Regulations should consider effect of toxics in
sludge on wildlife
Domzalski, L.J. Technical Manager, Nalco Chemical Co., 2901 Butterfield
Road, Oak Brook, IL 60521 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Prefers local control
Dorman, Loren F-, President, American Wood Preservers Institute, 1651 Old
Meadow Rd., Mclean, VA 22101 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Prefers strong local control
Dowden, Bobby, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Treatment Div., Dept. of
Public Utilities, P.O. Box 65, Shreveport, LA 71153 (dated: April
11, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Concerned with possible local enforcement difficulties
Dryden, Franklin D., Head Technical Services Dept., County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles Co., P.O. Box 4988, Whittier, CA 90677
(dated: April 14, 1970)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control, and supplied information
enforcement of water quality standards
Duensing, Hollis G., General Attorney, Law Dept., Assoc. of American
Railroads, American Railroads Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20036
(dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers maximum local control
-------
-134-
Dufficy, Thomas J., National Association of Photographic Manufacturers
Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave., Harrison, NY 10528 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control with water quality variances
under NPDES Permit system
Duncan, L.K., Plant Manager, W.R. Grace & Co.-Davison Chemical Div.,
4000 Hawthorne St., Chattanooga, TN 37406 (dated: April 22, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with duplication of efforts
Early, A.B., Environmental Action, Suite 731, 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concern for environment and safe sludge disposal
Early, Jack D., President, National Agricultural Chemicals Assoc., The
Madison Bldg., 1155 Fifteenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005
(dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with TSCA and FIFRA
Eby, Donald L., Director-Process Environment, Monsanto Co., 800 N. Lind-
bergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63166 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Prefers maximum local control
Effinger, John III., P.E., Systems Engineer, Water and Sewer Utilities,
P.O. Box 580, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concern with non-point sources
Eisele, Thomas D., Deputy Director, Lake Michigan Federation, 53 W.
Jackson Rd., Chicago, IL 60604 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with environment
Enferadi, Karol M., Chairwoman, Industrial Wastewater Subcommittee,
California Water Pollution Control Assoc., 127 N. Madison Ave.,
Suite 304, Pasadena, CA 91101 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Concerned with impact of pretreatment program
on local source control programs
-------
-135-
Fairfield, George H., Director of Public Works, City of Kearney, Box
489, Kearney, NB 68847 (dated: May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: No rational
Farley, E. Ray, Superintendent, Water and Sewer Dept., 505 Ellington
Pkway, Lewisburg, TN 37091 (dated: April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with duplication of effort
Fenner, Kenneth A., Esq., Office of the General Counsel, Masonite Corp.,
29 N. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Ferry, John D., Secretary-Treasurer, American Wood-Preservers' Assoc.,
1625 Eye St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: EPA should be concerned only with truly
toxic pollutants
Fielding, Blaine, Legal Dept., Clark Oil and Refining Corp., 131st and
Kedzie Ave., Blue Island, IL 60406 (dated: May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with duplication of treatment facilities
Fisher, William E., Administrator-Research Div., International Fabricare
Institute Research Center, 12251 Tech. Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20904
(dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concerned with exempting laundries from the Pretreat-
ment program
Freeman, George C., Jr., Special Counsel to the Utility Water Act Group,
1730 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1060, P.O. Box 19230, Washingtton,
D.C. 20006 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Concerned with complexity of variance provisions
and possibility of local government not
implementing a local compliance program
Fuller, Glen H., Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Office of Water Programs,
Water Quality Div., Olympia, WA 98504 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Opposes water quality variances
-------
-136-
Garrett, Theodore L., Counsel, National Association of Metal Fishers,
and the Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, 888 Sixteenth St.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Concerned with the legal technicalities of
technology-based standards
Geisler, Charles A. , Sanitation Engineer, City of Omaha, 1819 Farnam
St. Omaha, NB 68102 (dated: March 14, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Gilman, I.H., General Manager-Environmental Affairs, Chevron U.S.A.,Inc,
575 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94105 (dated: May 10, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefer water quality variances
Glover, R.C. and J.F. Byrd, Managers, Proctor and Gamble Co., Hillcrest
Tower, 7162 Reading Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45222
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Golle, H.A., Vice President - Operations, General Foods Corp., 250 North
St., White Plains, NY 10625 (dated: April 25, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Goodgame, T.H., Director, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Environ-
mental Div., Monte Rd., Benton Harbor, MI 49022 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: Combination of all 4
Major Position: Prefers local control
Graeser, Henry J., Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers, 555 Griffin Square,
Suite 820, Dallas TX 75202 (dated: February 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
Grage, Larry, Chief Operator, Village of Bensenville, 700 W. Irving Park
Rd., Bensenville, IL '60106 (dated: March 21, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Wants Federal backup
Grant, C.T., et.al., Deputy Commissioner for Environmental Health Services,
Oklahoma State Dept. of Health, N.E. 10th St. & Stonewall, P.O. Box
53551, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-137-
Green, James M., 208 Project Director, First Tennessee-Virginia Development
District, 207 N. Boone St., Johnson City, TN 37601 (dated: March
17, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Wants industrial input
Grosmaire, L.A., Chairman, Air and Water Resources Committee, Tennessee
Manufacturers Assoc., 708 Fidelity Federal Bldg., Nashville, TN
37219 (dated: April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality-based standards
Ralph D., Manager-Environmental Control, Deere & Co., John
Deere Rd., Moline IL 61265 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers local contorl and water quality variances
Gouck, James A., Chairman, Buffalo Area Advisory Council on Industrial
Waste Water, P.O. Box 1069, Buffalo, NY 14240 (dated: April 28,
1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Gubrud, Arne E., Environmental Affairs Director, American Petroleum Insti-
tute, 2101 L. St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Limit major Federal involvement
Guarino, Carmen F., Water Commissioner, Water Dept., City of Philadelphia,
1180 Municipal Services Bldg., Philadelphia, PA 19107 (dated:
April 11, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Hall, Elmer E., Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 77 Beale St., San Francisco,
CA 94106 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Concerned with conflict between Federal and State
programs
Hall, John F., Vice President-Resource & Environment, National Forest Products
Assoc., Forest Industries Bldg., 1619 Massachusetts Ave., M.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20036 (Dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Supports water quality variances
-------
-138-
Halloran, William J., Executive Secretary, Blackstone Valley District
Commission, P.O., Box A., Rumford, RI 02196 (dated: March 23,
1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Positon: Prefers state enforcement
Hanson, Charles R., Plant Manager, Velsicol Chemical Corp., 1199 Warford
St., Memphis, TN 38108 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: Offers new option
Major Position: Monitor inlet of POTW and utilize water
qua!ity standards
Harper, Fred A., General Manager, County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County, P.O. Box 8127, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (dated: April 28,
1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Harris, H.D., Vice President, Engineering, the Gates Rubber Co., 999 S.
Broadway, Denver, CO (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Supports local control
Hasfunther, William A., 404 Riggs Ave., Severna Park, MD. 21146 (dated:
May 1, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control and standards
Hauck, Roland L., "Save our Nextdoor Creek." Task Force California and
Nevada Conservation Resources Committee-Sierra Club, 320 La Serena
Way, Sonoma, CA 95476 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concern for the environment
Haxby, L.P., Manager-Environmental Affairs, Shell Oil Co., One Shell
Plaza, P.O. Box 2463, Houston, TX 77001
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality approach
Healy, William A., P.E., Executive Director, Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission, State of New Hampshire, Prescott Park, P.O. Box
95-105 Loudon Road, Concord, NH 03301 (dated: April 13, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Options ignore existing state laws and do not
consider small municipalities
-------
-139-
Heath, D.P., Coordinator-Environmental Conservation, Mobil Oil Corp.,150
E. 42nd St., NY, NY 10017 (date: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III combination
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Henry, Charles J. Director, Water Pollution Control, Metropolitan
Seattle, WA 98104 (dated: March 31, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Supports Mass limitations
Hert, Oral H., Technical Secretary, Stream Pollution Control Board,
Indiana, 1330 W. Michigan St., Indianapolis, IN 46205 (dated:
April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
Hittle, Paul C., General Supervisor of Environmental Affairs, Consumers
Power Co., 212 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, MI 49201 (dated: May
17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers EPA Guidelines for Water quality criteria
Hofheinz, Fred, Mayor, City of Houston, Houston, TX 77001 (dated: May
2, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers locally-derived water quality standards
Honberger, Roger F., Washington Representative, County of San Diego,
Suite 500, 1735 New York Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006
(dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers modification enforcement provision (section M)
Hopkins, Glen J., Deputy City Manager, Kansas City, MO 64106 (dated:
April 11, 1977)
Option Preference: AMSA Option
Major Position: Concerned with costs, and prefers water
quality standards
Houston, A.B.M., Manager-Compliance and Liaison Dept., Stationary Source
Environmental Control, Ford Motor Co., One Parklane Blvd., Dearborn,
MI 48126 (dated: May 19, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Prefers locally-derived standards
-------
-140-
Howell, Don T., Director of Utilities, Board of Light and Water Commissioners
of the City of Concord, Lock Drawer 567, Concord, NC 28025 (dated:
April 1, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Coordinate pretreatment with other programs
Hughes, William E., Composite Can and Tube Institute, 1800 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Hyatt, Joe H., P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works, City of Jacksonville,
220 E. Bay St., Jacksonville, FL 32202 (dated: March 31, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: National Pretreatment program will lend
authority to local efforts
Johnson, David L., Jr., Chief Operator, Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Vice-Chairman Genesee Valley Section - NYSPCA, Village of Avon,
Avon, NY 14414 (dated: April 13, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Federal laws have more authority than local laws
Johnson, W.R., Director-Plant Environment, Environmental Activities Staff,
General Motors Corp., General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI
48090 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Jones, Jack, Director of Public Works, City of Orem, 56 N. State St.,
P.O. Box 247, Orem, UT 84507 (dated: April 1, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Not stated
Jones, Rex E., Executive Director, Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission,
7212 N. Shadeland Suite 120, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards
Jordan, A. Gayle, Attorney, Southern Railway System, Law Dept., P.O. Box
1808, Washington, D.C. 20013 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: New pretreatment regulations are uneccessary
-------
-141-
Kamlet, Kenneth, Counsel, National Wildlife Federation, 1412 16th St.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Supports limited variances-views on "due process" issue
Kay, Arthur N., Environmental Control Director, City of St. Charles,
Municipal Center, St. Charles, IL 60174 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Keene, Albin G., Superintendent, Scarborough Sanitary District, P.O. Box
302, Scarborough, ME 047074
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Kellogg, H. Clay, Jr., General Manager, Kellogg Supply, Inc., 2394 S.
Figueroa St., Carson, CA 90745 (dated: April 20, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with sludge
Kelly, Robert H., Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, 881 W. St.
Charles Rd., Lombard, IL 60148 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers Federal control
Keston, S. Norman, Assistant to the Vice President-Environmental Affairs,
ASARCO, Inc., 120 Broadway, NY, NY 10005 (dated: April 18, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers local control through variances
Kilik, Eugene L., President, Tanners' Council of America, Inc., 411 Fifth
Ave., New York, NY 10016 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Consent Decree is not binding on EPA
King, Henry B., President, U.S. Brewers Assoc., Inc., 1750 K St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20006 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-142-
Kitazaki, S.W., General Manager, Oconomowoc Electroplating Co., Inc.,
Ashippum, WI 53003 (dated: April 28, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Concerned with equity of enforcement
Klinger, Florence, 072 Green Street, Martinez, CA 94553 (dated: April
14, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Prefers local control
Klippel, Richard W., P.E., Chairman, Industrial Waste Committee, New
York Water Pollution Federation, NY (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers technology-based standards
Korbitz, William E., P.E., Manager, Metropolitan Denver Sewer Disposal
District No. 1, 6450 York St., Denver, CO 80229 (dated: April 27,
1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers Federal standards with local control
Kovach, Gyula F., P.E., Director, Water Pollution Control, Kansas City
Dept. of Boulevards, Parks, and Streets, Civic Plaza, 701 N. 7th
St., Kansas City, KA 66101 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Utilize toxicity tests to show demonstratable
need to regulate a toxic
Kowalik, A.P., Manager - Environmental Affairs, Gulf Oil Co., - U.S.,
P.O. Box 2001, Houston, TX 77001 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Supports water quality standards
Krasofski, Frank J., Vice President-General Manger, James River - Fitchburg,
Inc., Old Princeton Rd., Fitchburg, MA 01420 (dated: April 11,
1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with exemption of industrial waste
treatment facilities
Kuchta, Francis W., Director, Dept. of Public Works, City of Baltimore,
600 Municipal Bldg., Baltimore, MD 21202 (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: AMSA Option
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality variances
-------
-143-
Kumagi, James S., Ph.D., Deputy Director of Environmental Programs,
State of Hawaii, Dept. of Health, P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HA
96801 (dated: May 6, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Lagnese, Joseph F., Duncan, Lagnese & Assoc., Inc., 3185 Babcock Blvd.,
Pittsburgh, PA 15237 (dated: March 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Wants water quality variances
Lambie, John A., Chief Engineer-General Manager, Ventura Regional County
Sanitation District, CA (dated: April 20, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Langlois, Gaytha A., Ph.D., and Linda Silversmith, Ph.D., Chairwomen,
Clean Water Committee, Ecology Action for Rhode Island, 286 Thayer
St., Providence, RI 02906 (dated: May 1, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concern for environment through strict regulations
Lardieri, Nicholas J. Director-Environmental Resources, Scott Paper Co.,
Scott Plaza, Philadelphia, PA 19113 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with EPA interference with joint industrial-
municipal POTWs and programs
LaRosa, Reginald A., P.E.,Director, Environmental Engineering Div.,
Agency of Environmental Conservation, State of Vermont, Montpelier,
Vermont 05602 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers NPDES State control
Lasker, Jerry, Executive Director, Indian Nations Council of Governments,
630 W. 7th St., Tulsa, OK 74127 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers minimization of duplication through local control
-------
-144-
Larrabee, Edward, Superintendent, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, 1700
7th St., Sanger, CA 93657 (dated: March 24, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers local control
Legallet, Jon S., Legallet Tanning Co., 1099 Quesada Ave., San Francisco
CA 94124 (dated: April 8, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control for less hazardous toxics
Levi, L., Chairman, Environmental Impact Committee, Southern Rubber Group,
5775 Dellwood Lane, Beaumont, TX 77706 (dated: May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Supports position of the Manufacturing Chemists
Assoc., (Albert Clark)
Levy, Gary F., Director, Dept. of Environmental Quality, Jefferson County,
618 Old Louisville Trust Bldg., Louisville, KY (dated: April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control and utilization of the
NPDES Program
Lewis, Gayle, H., P.E., Chief-Planning Div., State of Nebraska, Natural
Resources Commission, P.O. Box 94876, Lincoln, NB 68509 (dated:
May 4, 1977)
Option Preference: Combination of Options II & III
Major Position: Concerned with expense of pretreatment program
for small industries
Lockwood, John, Deputy City Manager, City of San Diego, City Administration
Bldg., 202 C. St., San Diego, CA 92101 (dated: April 11, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Not justified
Lohman, General Manager, Blackwell Burner Co., P.O. Box 37383, San
Antonio, TX 78237 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Long, D.W., Attorney, Southern Pacific Transportation Co., Southern
Pacific Bldg., 1 Market Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94105 (dated:
May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-145-
Lubetkin, StA., Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners,
600 Wilson Ave., Newark, NJ 07105 (dated: April 22, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Modification of Option III to include Option II
Lynam, Bart T., General Superintendent, Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago, 100 E. Erie St., Chicago, IL 60611 (dated:
April 4, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Lack of time for comment
Lyon, Walter A., Director, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Dept. of
Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, P.O. Box
2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 (dated: March 25, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: EPA should develop detailed guidance documents
Mannella, Raymond J., Director-Environmental Engineering, RCA, Cherry
Hill, NJ 08101 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Matlack, Albert S., The Society of Natural History of Delaware, R.D. #1
Box 137, Hockessin, DE 19707 (dated: March 13, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers federal standards and local enforcement
Mai kin, Gabriel, Mission Manager, Water Quality Task Force, National Paint
and Coating Assoc., 1500 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: III or AMSA option
Major Position: Prefer water quality variances be included
Martin, Roy E., Director-Science and Technology, National Fisheries Institute,
Inc., 1730 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (dated:
May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with marine environment
Matthews, Robert R., Manager, Water & Sewer Commission, City of Freeport,
230 Stephenson St., Freeport, IL 61032 (dated: March 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with grand awards
-------
-146-
Maurer, R.H., Environmental Maintenance Coordinator, Celanese Chemical
Co., Box 9077, Corpus Christi, TX 78408 (dated: May 20, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Concerned with POTW's designed to treat industrial
wastes
McGarry, Robert S., General Manager, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
4017 Hamilton St., Hyattsville, MD 20781 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III Combination
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
McManus, William H., Executive Vice President, Envelope Manufacturer's
Assoc., 1 Rockefeller Plaza, NY, NY 10020 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control and locally-derived standards
McReynolds, L.A., Manager-Environment, Consumer Protection and Standards,
Phillips Petroleum Co., Bartlesville, OK 75004 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Mead Corporation, World Headquarters, Courthouse Plaza, N.E., Dayton, OH
45463
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Supports inclusion of water quality standards
Melas, Nicholas J., President, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago, 100 East Erie St., Chicago, II 60611 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Concerned with pretreatment facility duplications
Mileski, Stanley E., Assistant to V.P.-Operations, Texize Chemicals Corp.,
P.O. Box 368, Greenville, SC 29602 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers addition of Option II variances
Miller, Bruce D., Assistant Plant Manager, and Satyendra M. De, Chief
Chemist, Chestnut Operating Co., Second and Chestnut Sts., Reading,
PA 19602 (dated: April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality to be considered
Miller, S.G., City of Boulder, Boulder, CO 80302 (dated: April 26,
1977)
Option Preference: I & II
Major Position: Prefers local control with guidelines based on
Consent Decree
-------
-147-
, George W., Water Pollution Control Director, A & Burlington
Sts., S.W., Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concerned with industrial coverage
Milligan, Thomas J., City Manager, City of Sparks, City Hall, 431 Prater
Way, Sparks, NV 89431 (dated: April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Miyahira, Wallace, Director and Chief Engineer, Honolulu, HA (dated:
April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: AMSA Option
Major Position: Same as AMSA
Moeller, Alton S., Plant Engineer, Lone Star Brewing Co., 600 Lone Star
Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78297 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Moore, Robert E., Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 7150
Brockton Ave., Suite 202, Riverside, CA 92506 (dated: April 28,
1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Morris, Timothy L., Assistant Director, Field Operations, Texas Water
Quality Board, Austin, TX (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Morse, Robert E., Ill, Attorney for Imperial Sugar Co., One Shell Plaza,
Houston, TX 77002 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Concerned with POTW's designed to treat industrial
wastes
Moschell, R.V., Director of Public Utilities, One Civic Center, Middletown,
OH 45042 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Muir, J.L., Superintendent, Waste Water Treatment Plant, City of Tolleson,
AZ (dated: March 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Wants Federal Guidance
-------
-148-
Muldoon, T.J., Vice President-Administration, Fibre Box Assoc., 224 S.
Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60604 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Muno, William E., Chemical Engineer, Enforcement Div., U.S.E.P.A.,
Washington, D.C. (dated: April 10, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Reservation over local control
Munroe, Robert E., Sr. Vice President-Manufacturing & Corporate Services,
Great Western Sugar Co., P.O. Box 53208, Denver, CO 80217 (dated:
April 222, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Murrey, Al E., P.E., Chief, Bureau of Water Quality, Idaho State Dept.
of Health and Welfare, Div. of Environment, Statehouse, Boise, ID
83720 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local enforcement
Naftzger, Howard J., 133 Purdue Ave., Kensington, CA 942708 (dated:
April 30, 1977)
Option Preference: I or IV
Major Position: Prefers Federal control
Nay, Ward H., Vice President for Engineering, The Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo,
MI 49001 (dated: May 6, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
Nestro, John M., Secretary, Joint Municipal Authority of Wyomissing
Valley, Berks County, Borough Hall, West Reading, PA (dated: April
19, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers national technology standards
Nikolich, Eli, Environmental Control Officer, Wastewater Treatment Plant,
5607 W. Jensen Ave., Fresno, CA 93706 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Enclosed sewage ordinance
-------
-149-
Niles, O'Jay, Director-Technical Services, American Textile Manufactu-
rers Assoc., Wachovia Center, 400 St. Tryon St., Charlotte, NC
28285 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Concerned with industry being overburdened by
regulations
Niles, Robert C. Director-Environmental Control, UniRoyal, Oxford Manage-
ment & Research Center, Middlebury, CN 06479 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Nolte, F.S., Plant Manager, the Celotex Corp., 2943 W. Southcross, San
Antonio, TX 78211 (dated: April 20, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Notzon, Al J. Ill, Executive Director, Alamo Area Council of Governments,
TX (dated: April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
Odendahl, James P., P.E., Acting Director, Division of Environmental Quality,
Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, 2010 Missouri Blvd., Jefferson
City, MO 65101 (dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers local control
Olncy, Austin F., Director, Deleware State Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Edward Tathall Bldg., Dover, DE 19901
(dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with additional administrative problems
and duplications
Olson, Jon L., District Director, Sanitary District of Rockford, 3333
Kishwaukee St., P.O. Box 918, Rockvord, IL 611105 (dated: May
4, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concerned with interference with local programs
Olson, O.B., Vice President-Administration, Shawano Paper Mills, P.O.
Box 3629, Green Bay, WI 54303 (dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Opposed to uniform national standards
-------
-150-
Ott, Randy P., P.E., Industrial Waste Engineer, Onondaga Co. Dept. of
Drainage and Sanitation, 125 Elwood Davis Rd., N. Syracuse, NY 13212
(dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
Overcash, Cliff, President, North Central Texas Council of Governments,
P.O. Drawer COG, Arlington, TX 76011 (dated: April 28, 1977)
Option Preference: AMSA option
Major Position: Prefers local control
Owen, T.C., Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Union Camp Corp.,
P.O. Box 1391, Savannah, GA 31402 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Supports inclusion of water quality variances
Padar, Francis V., P.E., M.C.E., Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Nassau
Co. Dept. of Health, 240 Old Mineola Rd., Mineola, NY 11501
(dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control with Federal standards
Parish, W.D., Chairman PAC, Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council,
Suite 207, First National Bank Bldg., McAllen,TX 78501 (dated:
April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control with water quality variances
Patocka, Roger R., R.E., Banner Assoc., Inc., 1024 6th Street, P.O. Box
298, Brookings, SD 57006 (dated: March 1, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Change definition of "Composite Sample"
Payne, T.C., Vice President-Environmental Quality, International Paper Co.,
P.O. Box 16807, Mobile, AL 36616 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefer water quality variances
Perry, Lloyd H., Chairman, Chattanooga Manufacturers Assoc., 817 Broad
St., Chattanooga, TN 37402 (May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers water quality standards
-------
-151-
Phillips, Edward E., Director of Public Works, Hayward, CA (dated:
April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Concerned with interference with local programs
Pisano, Mark A., Executive Director, Southern California Assoc. of Govern-
ments, 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90005
(dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Stresses competence of local sanitation districts
Powers, E.L., Director, Environmental & Energy Control, Mobay Chemical Corp.,
Penn Lincoln Parkway West, Pittsburgh, PA 15205 (dated: May 5, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Pyle, Joe N. , P.E., et. al., Seligman and Pyle Consulting Engineers,
Inc., Suite 207, 419 S. Main Avenue, San. Antonio, TX 78204 (dated:
April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefer water quality variances
Racine, W.J., Vice President-Products Div., Atlantic Richfield Co, 515
S. Flower St., Los Angeles, CA 90051 (dated: May 12, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Prefers local control
Rathmell, Richard K., Market Manager, Waste Treatment Systems, Permutit
Co., Inc., P.O. Box 355, Paramus, NJ 07652 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Not relevant
Reinfurt, Edward, Director of Government Affairs, Associated Industries
of New York State, Inc., 150 State St., Albany, NY 12207 (dated:
May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Prefers local control
Rice, I.M., Director, Dallas Water Utilities, and Chairman of the Assoc.
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, Suite 200, 1015 18th St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20036 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: AMSA Option
Major Position: Prefers local control for large municipalities
-------
-152-
Riley, Jerry K., Administrative Assistant, ABC Truck Rental and Leasing
Co., P.O. Box 9203, San Antonio, TX (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Roberts, Thomas E., P.E., Supervisor of Environmental Control, Celanese,
Polymer Specialties Co., One Riverfront Plaza, Louisville, KY 40202
(dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: Combination of I, II, & III
Major Position: Prefers minimum regulations
Robson, C. Michael, Director of Liquid & Solid Waste Projects, Dept. of
Public Works, City of Indianapolis, 2360 City-County Bldg., Indiana-
polis, IN 46204 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control with water quality standards
Rodgers, J.L., Jr., Division Manager, American Water Works Service Co.,
Inc., New England Div., 20 Milton St., P.O. Box 158, East Dedham,
MA 02026 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: EPA should develop guidelines for localities
Roegelein, W., Jr., President, Roegelein Provision Co., Box 1698, San
Antonio TX 78296 (dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Rook, J.H., Manager-Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Dept.,
American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, NJ 07470 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers addition of water quality variances
Rose, Gordon, Vice-President, Bio-Chem Analysts, Inc., 4940 N. Memorial
Pkwy., Huntsville, AL 35180 (dated: May 13, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Prefers limited local control
Rosen, Harold S., Deputy City Manager, City of San Jose, 801 North First
St., San Jose, CA 95110 (dated: April, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Concerned with interference with local source
control programs
-------
-153-
Ross, E.E., Manager, Water Pollution Control Dept., East Bay Municipal
Utility District, 2130 Adeline St., Oakland, CA 94823 (dated:
April 25, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local enforcement with water quality
considerations
Rowe, A.R., Jr., Negley and Co., Inc., P.O. Box 12071, San Antonio, TX
(dated: April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Rubin, Florence, President, League of Women Voters, 120 Boylston, MA 02116
(dated: May 15, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Concerned with equity problems
Sadat, Marwan M., Ph.D., P.E., Program Director, Office of Sludge Manage-
ment and Industrial Pretreatment, State of New Jersey-Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Div. of Water Resources, P.O. Box 2809,
Trenton, NJ 08625 (dated: April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Concerned with protection of sludge
Salzmann, Don E., City of Melrose, Melrose, MN 56352 (dated: April 12,
1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Sasse, Gary S., Assistant Chief Administrator, City Hall, 125 N. Main
St., Memphis, TN 38103 (dated: April 13, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Lack of data to justify a pretreatment program
Saucier, John, Director, Tennessee Div. of Water Quality Control, Dept.
of Public Health, 621 Cordell Hill Bldg., Nashville, TN 37219
(dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Supports water quality standards and submits
supporting documents
Scanlan, James W., P.E., Assistant Chief, Facilities, Bureau of Water
Quality Control, Div. of Environmental Health Services, Arizona
Dept. of Health Services, State Health Bldg., 1740 W. Adams St.,
Phoenix, AZ 85007 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-154-
Scherer, C.H., Water Reclamation Superintendent, Wastewater Treatment,
P.O. Box 1971, Amarillo, TX 79186 (dated: April 28, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concerned about interference with local programs
Schnitzius, Allen W., Mayor, Village of Cuba, 17. E. Main St., Cuba, NY
NY 14727 (dated: March 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Schmidt, Wayne A., Staff Ecologist, Michigan United Conservation Clubs,
2101 Wood St., P.O. Box 30235, Lansing, MI 48905 (dated: April
21, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with sludge disposal
Schuh, Joseph R., Manager-Production Developments, P.O. Box 402427, 975
Arthur Godfrey Rd., Miami Beach, FL 33140 (dated: May 11, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concerned with laundry industry exemption
Schwartz, Stephen M., Manager-Environmental Engineering, Keystone Consolidated
Industries, Inc. (no date)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Scolnick, Meyer, Director, Region II, Enforcement Division, U.S.E.P.A.,
Washington, D.C.'(dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: Combinations of Options I and IV
Major Position: Concerned with enforcement problems
Shaw, C. Russell, Director-Energy Conservation, Erving Paper Mills,
Templeton, MA (dated: April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with POTW designed specifically
for industrial wastes
Sherwood, Roger C., Sr. Environmental Engineer, Georgia-Pacific Corp.,
900 S.W. Fifth Ave., Portland, OR 97204 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II combination
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-155-
Shukle, Robert J., Industrial Waste Consultant, Technical Services and
Grants Section, Colorado Dept. of Health, 4210 E. llth Ave., Denver,
CO 80220 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with proqam administration
Silverman, Richard H., Manager-Law Dept., Salt River Project, P.O. Box
1980, Phoenix, AZ 85001 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Sloan, Garrett, Director, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, P.O. Box
330316, Miami, FL 33133 (dated: March 30, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Sluizer, Mervyn, Jr., Technical Director, Institute of Industrial Launderers,
1730 M. St., N.W., Suite 613, Washington, D.C. 20036 (dated: May
16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefer water quality variances
Small, David R., Executive Vice President, H. Swoboda & Son, Div. of
Trans-Continental Leathers, Inc., 1027 Bodine St., Philadelphia, PA
19123 (dated: March 14, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Wants water quality variances
Smith, Jack K., P.E., Chairman, Government Affairs Committee, Missouri
Water Pollution Assoc., Inc. (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Solomon, Neil, M.D., Ph.D., Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene,
State of Maryland, 201 W. Preston St., Baltimore, MD 21201 (dated:
April 15, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Spence, John D., Jr., Superintendent, Western Carolina Regional Sewer Auth-
ority, Maul din Rd., P.O. Box 5242, Greenville, SC 29606 (dated:
April 21, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-156-
Stamps, J.C., P.E., Technical Director, Standard Electric Co., 3016
Austin HW., P.O. Box 18127, San Antonio, TX 78218 (dated: April
25, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Stetler, C. Joseph, President, Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Assoc.,
1155 Fifteenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (dated: May
17, 1977)
Option Preference: II and III combination
Major Position: Concerned with limiting documentation
Strassner, Kenneth A., Regulator Attorney-Washington Counsel's Office,
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 1730 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1100,
Washington, D.C. 20006 (dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers limiting number of regulated pollutants
Studabaker, W.C., P.E., Environmental Engineer, Eastern Lines, Atchison,
Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co., P.O. Box 1738, Topeka, KA 66628
(dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Utilize and build on existing pretreatment programs
Stull, E.B., President, Stull Chemical Co., 1006 Paulsen, San Antonio,
TX 78219 (dated: April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Sullivan, Roger A., Director of Manufacturing, Sullivan Paper Co., Inc.,
61 Progress Ave., P.O. Box 88, W. Springfield, MA 01089 (dated:
May 10, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Tanzer, Ernest K., P.E., Executive Secretary, Environmental Steering
Committee, Eastman Kodak Co., 1669 Lake Ave., Rochester, NY
14650 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: Recommends an alternate option
Major Position: Emphasizes local control using NYSPDES/NPDES Program
Taylor, James L., Process Control Engineer, Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Commission, 718 Main St., Fitchburg, MA 01420 (dated: April 5,
1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers control of only most hazardous substances
-------
-157-
Tiepel, Chairman, Environmental Services Task Force, Public Technology
Inc., 1140 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (dated:
May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: Combination of II & III
Major Position: Presents a summary of the reactions of U.S.
urban communities
Teller, Joe P., Deputy General Manager, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority,
910 Bay Area Blvd., Houston TX 77058 (dated: March 28, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Thomas, S.H., Director of Environmental Services, Owens-Corning Fiberglass
Corp., Fiberglass Tower, Toledo, OH 43659 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III combination
Major Position: Combination is most time-effective and equitable
Trefz, William C., Chief Engineer, Allegheny County Sewer Authority,
3300 Preble Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15233 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Concerned with jurisdictional problems and prefers
quality variances
Troy, H. Neal, Manager-Environmental Control, Owens-Illinois, P.O. Box
1035, Toledo, OH 43666 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Thorpe, J.R., Manager of Environmental Affairs, GPU Service Corp., 260
Cherry Hill Rd., Parsippany, NJ 07054 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers locally-derived limits
Turney, W.G., Bureau Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Dept. of
Natural Resources, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI 48926 (dated:
April 4, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Umlauf, Larry D., Vice President, Pet Inc., 400 S. Fourth St., St. Louis,
MO 63166 (dated: May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-158-
Van De Boe, Alan C., Superintendent of Sanitation, City of Quincy, City
Hall Bldg., Quincy, IL 62301 (dated: April 4, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Van Sicler, Richard R., Rohm and Haas Tennessee, Inc., P.O. Box 591, 730
Dale Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37901 (dated: April 11, 1977)
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Voight, W.G., Chairman, Stinson Manufacturing Co., 555 Harriman, San
Antonio, TX 78204 (dated: April 195 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Vondrick, Art F., Water & Sewers Director, City of Phoenix, 215 E. McDowell
Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004 (dated: March 28, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Vrana, Richard A., Plant Manager, Howell Hydrocarbons, P.O. Box 27776,
San Antonio, TX 78299 (dated: April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Walker, Paul A., Environmental Engineer, Hollingsworth & Vose Co., East
Wai pole, MA 02032 (dated: May 2, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers local control with water quality standards
Walker, W. Jack, President, Greater Knoxville Chamber of Commerce, 301
Church Ave., S.E., Knoxville, TN 37902 (dated: May 10, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Water quality standards with maximum local control
Ward, Frank L., Superintendent, Municipal Treatment Plants, High Point,
NC (dated: April 25, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Concerned with maintaining POTW iter-relationships
with industry
Ward, W.A., Vice President-General Manager, Aggie Chemical Industries,
P.O. Box 8335, San Antonio, TX 78208 (dated: April 22, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
-------
-159-
Warr, James W., Chief Administrative Officer, State of Alabama Water
Improvement Commission, Perry Hill Office Park, 3815 Interstate
Court, Montgomery, AL (dated: April 26, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with delegation of authority to non-
NPDES states
Watson, K.S., Director of Environmental Control, Kraft Inc., 801 Waukegan
Rd., Glenview, IL 600025 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Concerned with definition of "slug discharge"
Webb, David, Director of Operations, City of Bentonville, 115 West Central,,
Bentonville, Ark., 72712 (no date)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Prefers local control
Webb, Mitchell and Baxter Grier, Officers, San Antonio Manufacturer's
Assoc., Ill W. Laurel, Suite 228, San Antonio, TX 78212 (date:
April 27, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
Wegbreit, Sam, Box 5210, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 (no date)
Option Preference: Offers personally-derived option
Major Position: Gives detailed analysis
Weismantel, Guy, Western Editor, Chemical Engineering, 3200 Wilshire Blvd.,
South Tower, Los Angeles, CA (dated: April 5, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Concerned with the overall problems of implementing
a pretreatment program
Wells, W. James, Jr., P.E., Bell, Galyardt and Wells, Inc., 5634 S. 85th St.,
Omaha, NB 68126 (dated: May 3, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control and water quality standards
Welsh, Gene B., Chief-Water Protection Branch, Dept. of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Div., State of Georgia, 270 Washington St.,
N.W., Atlanta, GA 30334 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Prefers local control and locally-derived treatment
1imits
-------
-160-
Western Reserve Economic Development Agency, 522 Office Bldg., 918 Youngstown
Rd., Niles, OH 44446 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: EPA should schedule more briefings with local officials
White, W.A., Vice President, National Agricultural Chemicals Assoc., The
Madison Bldg., 1155 Fifteenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005
(dated: May 18, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III Combination
Major Position: Support local government cooperation with industry
Willenbrink, R.V., Director-Environmental Control, Ashland Oil, Inc., P.O.
Box 391, Ashland, KY 41101 (dated: May 16, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers addition of water quality variances
Woods, Richard H., Counsel, Ocean County Sewerage Authority, 10005 Hooper
Ave., Toms River, NJ 08753 (dated: May 17, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Concerned with equity problems
Wright, James F., Executive Director, Deleware River Basin Commission,
P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628 (dated: May 9, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local enforcement
Young, Earle F., Jr., Director-Environmental Affairs, American Iron and
Steel Institute, 1000 16th St., N.iJ., Washington, D.C. 20036 (dated:
April 19, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers local control
Young, G.R., President, Southern Chemical and Refining Co., P.O. Box
552, Melbourne, FL 32901 (no date)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Not relevant
Yerges, Howard, Vice President-Engineering, Banquet Foods Corp., 100
N. Broadway, St. Louis, MO 63102 (dated: April 29, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers local control
-------
-161-
Zainea, Joseph G., City Manager, City of Grand Rapids, MI 49502
Option Preference: II
Major Position: Prefers local control
Zenie, Etnil, Supervisor of Industrial Waste Control, Monroe Co. Div.
of Pure Waters, 65 Broad St.,-Rm. 100, Rochester, NY 14614 (dated:
Mya 16, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers technology-based standards applied to effluent
of POTW
Zohn, J., P.E. Director, Dept., of Public Works, Wastewater Management
Div., 5055 Washington St., Denver, CO 90216 (dated: April, 1977)
Option Preference: II & III
Major Position: Prefers water quality variances
-------
-162-
ADDEMDUM TO LOG OF LETTERS
Bielo, Robert J., Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 5012 Lenker Street,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (Dated: April 22, 1977)
Option Preference: IV
Major Position: Prefers Federal Standards and
Local Control
Bigler, Daniel E., New Jersey Water Pollution Control Association,
318 - 76th Street, North Bergen, NJ 07047
(Dated: April 28, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers Local Control
Costello, John G., Bergen County Sewer Authority, Box 122,
Little Ferry, New Jersey 07643 (Dated: June 2, 1977)
Option Preference: III & II
Major Position: Prefers Local Control
Green, John A., U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 (Dated: June 10, 1977)
Option Preference: I
Major Position: Recognition of Resource Implications of
all Options Inadequate
Nelson, Myron K., Johnson County Unified Sewer Districts,
P. 0. Box 39, Shawnee Mission, KA 66201 (Dated: June 2, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers State Control
Todd, S. K., United States Steel Corporation, 600 Grant Street,
Pittsburg, PA 15230 (Dated: May 4, 1977)
Option Preference: III
Major Position: Prefers Local Control
Van De Boe, Alan C., City of Quincy Sanitation Committee, Quincy,
Illinois 62301 (Dated: April 20, 1977)
Option Preference: None
Major Position: Prefers Local Control
iU.S.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE: 1977-260-880:84
------- |