SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Enforcement &
Permits
January 30, 1985
Water
Pretreatment
Implementation Review
Task Force
Final Report to the
Administrator
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency January 30, 1985
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
-------
ADMINISTRATOR’ S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
On February 3, 1984, Mr. William Ruckelshaus, then EPA
Administrator, established the Pretreatment Implementation
Review Task Force (PIRT), to provide the Agency with recommen-
dations on the day—to—day problems faced by POTWs, States and
industry in implementing the Agency’s pretreatment program.
PIRT was composed of 17 representatives of POTWs, States,
industry, environmental groups and EPA Regions. The challenge
before them was great. There were a wide range of issues that
needed to be addressed, difficulties in resolving differences
and reaching consensus among such a diverse group, and a short
(11 month) schedule. The result of a very dedicated and
extensive effort by these Task Force members is PIRT’s Final
Report. It is an impressive and timely achievement. The
Agency greatly appreciates the efforts of Task Force members,
and believes that their recommendations will result in a
significant improvement in the implementation of the
pretreatment program.
Lee N. Thomas
MAR 191985
-------
UNITED STATES ENVR0NME AL PROTECTIOr AGF C?
ADVISOR? COMMITTEE CHARTER
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS - COMMITTEES, BOARDS, PANELS, AND COUNCILS
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE
1. PURPOSE . This Charter is issued to establish the Pretreatment
Implementation Review Task Force for an eleven month period in
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, 5 U.S.C. (App. I) 9(c).
2. AUTHORITY . The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
is being established by the Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator by sections 104 and 307(a)(7) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended. It is determined that
this Task Force, which will assist the Agency in performance of
its dutils as outlined by section 307 of the FWPCA, is in the
public interest.
3. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY . The Pretreatment Implementation
Review Task Force is essential to the continued progress of the
Agency’s industrial waste pretreatment and control mission in
Title III of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(Clean Water Act). The common implementaUon problems experienced
by industry, States and municipalities will be examined and
options for program improvement developed and debated. The need
for guidance, training programs, technical assistance, and policy
for interpretation will be the focus of activity. •Where it
becomes necessary, regulatory amendments will also be discussed.
4. FUNCTIONS . The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
will provide advice and divergent views to the Adr inistrator in
the implementation of the national pretreatment program. The day—
to—day problems experienced by municipalities, States and industries
implementing the part 403 General Pretreatment regulations and
the Categorical Pretreatment Standard regulations will be reviewed.
Advice and comments to the Administrator will include technical,
legal and policy changes which can improve implementation of the
program nationwide while addressing concerns expressed by industry,
States, municipalities and environmental interest groups. The
Task Force provides a forum for discussion among the affected
groups which may avert the use of litigation, as has occurred in
the past. Issue papers will be developed to examine the problems,
suggest options and recommend action. The issue pá ers will be
the basis of Task Force discussions and any ecbmmendations to the
Administrator. The Task Force expects to produce an interim
report in May, 1984 . This report will identify important problems
-------
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
in the area of pretreatment implementation and include a preliminary
analysis of ways.of achieving rapid and effective implementation
through such assistance methods as guidance, training programs,
workshops, technical assistance and policy interpretation. In
December 1984• the Task Fcrce will prepare a detailed analysis
and final report of implementation problems that require changes
to the general pretreatment regulations and will recommend s ec fic
regulatory changes.
5. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS . The Pretreatment Implementation
Review Task Force will, consist of eighteen members, including
the Chairperson, appointed by the Deputy Administrator. MemSership
will consist of individuals with special experience or interest
in th pretreatment area or environmental protection in general.
Specifically, the membership will consist of: four industry
representatives, three State representatives, three Federal
employees, four municipal representatives and three environmental
interest group members. MeetingS’ of the Task Force will be held
four times during the calendar year or at the request of the
Chairperson. The Task Force is authorized to form subcommittees
which will be comprised solely from members of the Pretreabuent
Implementation Review Task Force. Meetings will be called,
announced, and held in accordance with the EPA Manual on Committee
Management. The manual provides for open meetings of advisory
committees; requires that interested persons be permitted to
file written statements before or after meetings; and provides
for oral statàments by interested perSons to the extent that
time permits. A full—time salaried officer or employee of.
the Agency who will be designated as Chairperson or Executive
Secretary, will .b! present at all meetings and is authorized
to adjourn any such meeting wheneverit is determined to be
in the public interest. The annual operating cost of the
Task Force will total approximately S90,000 which includes 2.6
work-years for Agency Task Force members, staff and clerical
support. This cost i ncludes travel Ixpense reimbursement for
Task Force members. (excluding the industrial representatives)
and the Agency support staff.
6. DURATION. . Dhe Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
will terminat. eleven months after the Congressional filing
date.
F E B 3 S4
Agency Approval Date Administrator
January 25, 1984
GSA Review Date
FEB?
Date Filed with Congress
-2—
-------
PIRT PERSONNEL
Chairperson: Rebecca W. Hanmer, EPA
Members: James B. lacklidge, Craftsman Plating and
Tinning Corp.
Trudy Coxe, Save the Bay
Frances Dubrowski, Natural Resources Defense Council
Kenneth A. Fenner, EPA Region V
Rodney C. Glover, Jr., Proctor and Gamble Co.
Kenneth Goldstein, State of New Jersey
Stanton 3. Kleinert, State of Wisconsin
George E. Kurz, City of Chattanooga, Tennessee
H.P. Lindner, General Electric Co.
Charles D. Malloch, Monsanto Co.
Donald L. Menno, City of Buffalo, New York
Jon L. Olson, City of Rockford, Illinois
Gerald C. Potamis, EPA Region I
Robert R. Robichaud, EPA Region X
Charles E. Strehi, City of York, Pennsylvania
Mark Van Putten, National Wildlife Federation
Gene B. Welsh, State of Georgia
EPA Staff: Richard 3. Kinch, Executive Director
Jerry N. Parker, Assistant Executive Direct’or
Salahdin Abdul—Haqq, Facilitator
-------
PIRT Subcommittees
Technical Implementation Subcommittee
Kenneth Goldstein, Chairperson
George Kurz
0. F. Lindner
Charles D. Mall ch
Robert R. Robichaud
Mark Van Putten
Program Development and Approval Subcommittee
Donald L. Menno, Chairperson
rrances Duorowsk 1
Kenneth A. Fenn”r
Rodney C. Glover
Jon Olson
Gene B. Welsh
Reporting and Monitoring Subcommittee
Charles E. S rehl, Chairperson
James B. Bla klid’ e
Trudy Coxe
Stanton J. Kleinert
Gerald C. Potamis
-------
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PIRT Recominendat ions
A. PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION 3
1. Suspension of the Definition of Interference 3
2. Determining Interference 4
3. Local Limits 5
4. State Water Quality Standards 6
5. Local Limits Based on Effluent Toxicity Criteria 7
6. Sludge Disposal Criteria 8
7. Notification of Solid Waste Disposal Obligations 9
8. Categorical Standards 9
9. Categorical Standard Updating 12
10. Regulation of Small Industrial Users 13
11. Research and Development Facilities and Federal 14
Facilities
12. Combined Wastestream Formula 14
13. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities 17
14. POTW Implementation Guidance 18
15. Industrial Monitoring Frequency 18
16. Industrial Wastewater Inspection Training 19
17. Monitoring for Toxic Organics 19
18. Toxicant Controls 20
19. Pretreatment Newsletter 21
20. Removal Credits 22
21. Uniform and Simplified Program Data Handling 27
22. Uniform and Simplified Program Data Reporting 28
23. Industrial Users — Enforceable Limits 29
-------
—2—
S. ENFORCEMENT 30
1. Enforcement Policy Statement 30
2. Enforcement against POTWs without Program
Applications 30
3. Guidance 31
4. Guidance on Enforcement 31
5. Development and Submission of NP.DES State
Pretreatment Program 32
6. Submission of Baseline Reports 34
7. Compliance Reports 34
8. Enforcement of Program Requirements 35
9. Change of Ownership 35
10. Submittal of Testing Data for Periodic
Compliance Reports 35
C. RESOURCES 37
1. EPA Regional Offices 37
2. Processing Removal Credit Applications 38
3. State Programs 38
4. POTW Programs 39
5. EPA Headquarters 41
D. ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS 42
1. EPA Oversight of State and POTW
Pretreatment Programs 42
2. Levels of Authority 45.
3. Delegations Issues 52
E. REGULATORY CHANGES 56
1. S403.3(i) Definition of Interference 56
2. S403.3(n) Definition of Pass—Through 57
-------
—3—
3. §403.5 pH Variability 58
4. Use of Spent Pickle Liquors for Phosphorus
Removal at Publicly Owned Treatment Works 59
5. §403.6 Criteria for New Source Determinations 62
6. §413 Electroplating Categorical Standards 65
7. State Rule Making Process Completed Prior
to Program 66
8. §403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or
Authorization to Revise Pretreatment
Standards; Submission for Approval 67
9. S403.11 Approval Procedures for POTW
Pretreatment Programs and POTW Revision
of Cateciorical Pretreatment Standards 68
10. §403.12 Approved Sampling Techniques 68
11. §403.12 Self—Monitoring vs. POTW Monitoring 69
12. Annual POTW Reports 70
13. §403.15 Net/Gross 70
14. §403.15 Net/Gross Determinations 72
15. §403 Appendices B, C and D Must Be Updated 72
Minority Statement 75
-------
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT)
was charged with reviewing pretreatment program development,
approval, and implementation. We identified five sets of
issues affecting the functioning of the program.
First, pretreatment program reauirements are viewed by many
as being complex and not well understood. EPA has the ability
to simplify and clarify the program and should do so where
appropriate.
Second, enforcement of program requirements is critical for
protecting the environment. This approach will also promote
consistent implementation of the program requirements nationwide.
Third, the success of the program depends on adequate
resources. At present, EPA has not budgeted enough resources to
implement the program. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWS)
and States are likewise pressed for the necessary funds and
people.
Fourth, the success of the program also depends on a working
partnership between three different levels of government: the
-------
—2-
federal government, the States and the POTWs. The roles and
responsibilities of each must be clearly spelled out and adhered
to.
Fifth, we identified a set of regulatory changes. PIRT has
not included in this Final Report its previous recommendations for
the promulgation of a “definition of new source” and “approved
testing methods.” In response to PIRT’s Interim Report, the EPA
has already promuiqated these sections.
For each set of issues, we developed specific recommendations
for EPA.
-------
—3—
A. PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION
EPA should provide more regional workshops, guidance manuals,
and seminars to explain the pretreatment program to States and
POTWs, the business community and the general public. In the
interest of simplification and clarification, EPA’S pretreatment
guidance manuals should address problems faced by the majority
of sources and should leave more atypical problems to be worked
out on a case—by—case basis with State or Regional offices.
Future pretreatment reaul.ations, standards and guidance manuals
should be written as simply aspossible using examples to
foster maximum understanding of the program. PIRT recommends
that EPA issue guidance or clarification on the following
points:
1. Suspension of the Definition of Interference
On February 10, 1984 (40 FR 5131) the Agency suspended the
definition. Currently, POTW representatives are not sure
whether they can take enforcement action due to interference
when there is no promulgated definition. As soon as possible,
the Agency should publish an interim statement regarding the
Agency’s policy on how to deal with enforcement where interference
at the POTW is occurring before the new definition is promulgated.
The Agency should inform Control Authorities that the Court
specifically declined to remand the regulatory prohibition
against interference. In cases where causation is clear, they or
the Agency can legally take enforcement action using the common
English language definition of interference.
-------
—4—
2. Determining Interference
Many POTW representatives do not understand how to determine
if an industrial user(s) is causing interference with the operation
of the POTW. EPA should develop guidance to POTWs to assist in the
determination of an interference and in the tracking of bonafide
interferences back to the source(s). The document should consider
the following:
a. definition of different types of interference (at the
treatment plant and in the sewer line);
b. steps for determination of bonafide interference (e.g.,
deterioration and corrosion of sewer mains, explosions in sewers,
etc., are interferences generally caused from industrial sources).
Interference a the treatment plant needs detailed analysis to
assure it is caused from industrial sources and not a result of
poor operation and maintenance at the plant or non—industrial
sources;
c. discussion of equipment (e.g., sensing devices) useful
in alerting POTW staff to potential problems;
d. discussion of techniques available to seqregate or
divert influent wastewaters capable of causing interference
or upsets at the treatment plant;
e. discussion of analytical techniques to quickly analyze
pollutants potentially causing the interference;
-------
—5—
f. development of an action plan to track the source of a
bonafide interference (review of industrial survey to determine
potential industries, preparing a grid chart of potential users,
sampling critical interceptors, sampling potential users at their
site and/or downstream in the sewer line);
g. discussion of level of effort required to accomplish
(b) & (f) by a small, medium, and large size POTWs; and
h. discussion of level of effort required where immediate
endangerment of life or operation of the treatment plant is
evident or imminent.
i. listing of specific problems which constitute interference.
3. Local Limits
Defensible local limits are the cornerstone of an effective
POTW Pretreatment Program. Yet, some POTW representatives do not
understand the relationship between categorical pretreatment
standards and local limits, or even how to develop local limits.
Development of local limits as described in §403.5(c) of the
General Pretreatment Regulations is not well understood and is
not consistently being applied by EPA Regional Offices, States,
and POTWs. The two main points that are not well understood deal
with whether local standards are required, and if so, whether
they are required to be developed as part of program development.
PIRT strongly recommends that EPA expeditiously issue a policy
-------
—6—
statement regarding development of local limits by POTWs, with
examples of where such limits are needed. The policy statement
should specify that local limits, where currently needed, should
be established during program development and implemented upon
formal approval of the Pretreatment Program by the Approval
Authority.
In addition the Agency should provide guidance on how to
compare local limits with categorical pretreatment standards,
and should emphasize through a nolicy statement that a local
limit takes precedence over a categorical standard, if the
local limit is more stringent. Development of local limits
might be facilitated by distribution of a computer model. The
computer model being developed by EPA should be submitted for
public comment; appropriate changes made to produce an effective
proven computer model; and then widely distributed.
4. State Water Quality Standards
State water quality standards establish the need to develop
local limits and form a technical and legal foundation for
developing these limits. Unfortunately, few States have numerical
water quality standards for toxics other than heavy metals.
Although all States have the narrative wfree from” standards that
the waters be free from toxic substances in toxic amounts, this
standard does not readily support the development of local limits.
For example, according to EPA staff, less than one percent of all
POTW NPDES permits contain numerical limits for the discharge of
toxics (including heavy metals).
-------
—7—
Recently, EPA in issuing the new water quality standards
regulations, 48 F.R. 51400 et. sea. (Nov. 8, 1983) has emphasized
the importance of reviewing and revising State water quality
standards to address more specifically toxic pollutants. PIRT
generally supports EPA’S effort to encourage the üpgradinq of
State water quality standards includinq those for toxics as
outlined in these regulations. In particular, PIRT supports EPA’S
commitment to promulgating water auality standards for States
unable or unwilling to develop standards. However, it is unclear
when EPA will take such action. EPA should issue policy guidance
to the Regions and States specifically describing when EPA will
promulgate water quality standards for States unwilling or unable
to develop standards which address toxic substances.
Another deficiency in the water quality standards revision
process is the absence of any EPA tracking system to evaluate
nationwide progress in revising State water quality standards
for toxics. PIRT recommends that EPA headquarters develop a
tracking system for assessing State progress in developing
needed toxics standards and for sharing information nationwide.
5. Local Limits Based on Effluent Toxicity Criteria
EPA’S “effluent toxicity” approach to generating water
quality—based effluent limitations (“Policy on Water Quality—
Based Controls for Toxic Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act”)
for complex POTW effluents may provide POTWs with increased legal
support for developing local limits; it will not, without further
-------
—8—
guidance, assist POTWs in the technical intricacies of developing
these limits. EPA should develop a scientifically supportable
methodology for evaluating effluent toxicity and applying the
“toxicity reduction evaluation” process to POTW effluents. It
should then issue guidance when available and after opportunity
for public comment. In addition, this technical guidance should
demonstrate by use of case studies how this evaluation process
can be used to develop appropriate requirements for POTW users.
6. Sludge Disposal Criteria
To date, EPA has promulgated only skeletal criteria governing
the management and disposal of POTW sludge. There are land appli-
cation regulations for cadmium and PCBs, Clean Air Act incineration
requirements, ‘and ocean dumping controls. However, EPA is
reconsidering all of these controls in the context of a comprehen-
sive initiative to regulate municipal sludge management and
disposal. Without sludge criteria POTWs can have a difficult time
developing local limits to protect sludge quality. EPA should
expeditiously develop sludge management and disposal requirements.
It is critical that EPA state its basic approach for developing
these requirements and publish available information on municipal
sludge disposal as soon as possible.
-------
—9—
7. Notification of Solid Waste Disposal Obligations
Section 403.8(f)(2)(iji) requires POTWs to notify industrial
users subject to the POTW pretreatment program of any applicable
requirements under SS204(b) and 405 of the Act and Subtitles C
and D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Many
Control Authorities are not sufficiently knowledgeable of RCRA
regulations to fulfill this requirement. EPA should develop a
handbook for POTWs so that POTWs, charged by §403.8(f)(2)(iil)
with notifying industrial users of their RCRA obligations, will
be able to discharge this responsibility.
8. Categorical Standards
EPA has issued categorical pretreatment standards that are:
(1) concentration based, (2) production based and (3) both. To
confirm compliance with a concentration based standard, the
Control Authority must take a wastewater sample and measure the
concentration of pollutants; this result can then be compared to
the standard. To confirm compliance with a production based
standard the Control Authority must U) take a wastewater sample
açtd measure the concentration of pollutants; (2) measure the
flow; (3) measure production, which either reaulres the Control
Authority to accept reports by the industrial user or enter the
facility and take measurements of square meters, mass or other
production factors through the process(es); and (4) multiply
the concentration times the flow, divide by the production rate
and compare to the standard. The most difficult step in deter-
mining compliance with production based standards is confirming
production.
-------
— 10 —
a. Converting Production Based Standards
For a direct discharger the permit authority will simplify
implementation of production based limits by using a permit
system. A plant production level is specified and multi-
plied by the production based limit to establish a mass of
pollutants per day allowance in the permit. Direct dis—
chargers are required to comply with this mass per day
allowance specified in the permit. This procedure allows
the permit issuing authority to monitor compliance by
measuring the concentration of pollutants and the flow,
multiplying the results and comparing it to the mass
discharge allowance. The following are not clear to POTWs:
(1) If this same procedure is appropriate for indirect
dischargers, which are not reauired to be permitted by the
federal pretreatment regulations; (2) how it could be
implemented; and (3) if equivalent concentration limits
for a plant could be used by establishing a production
rate and flow in a permit or other legally enforceable
mechanism, and muJ.tiplying the plant production by the
production based standard and then dividing by the plant
flow. The Agency should issue, as soon as possible, a
statement informing Control Authorities of the ways in
which permits, contracts or other enforceable mechanisms
may be used legally to convert production based standards
to equivalent mass or concentration limits.
-------
— 11 —
b. Implementation of Categorical Standards
The Agency needs to develop and distribute as soon as
possible a guidance document on the implementation of
categorical standards that contains at least the following:
1) Examples of how production based standards are
applied in an indirect discharger permit or other legally
enforceable mechanism (for setting the production level
in the permit and establishing a mass per day standard,
or setting both the flow and production level in the permit
to establish an equivalent concentration recuirement for
ease of compliance monitoring by the Control Authority.)
2) A discussion of how to interpret production and
flow information from industrial facilities to be able
to establish reasonable effluent limitations at the
industrial facility.
(Separate statement — G. Kurz, 7. Olson, D. Menno, C. Strehl:
POTW Control Authorities feel that the need for a legally
enforceable “equivalent” system for issuing local permits
with concentration standards is critically important. If
the Agency informs Control Authorities that this is not
possible in its statement (requested above by PIRT), then
we feel that the Agency should also develop changes to its
regulations that would allow such a conversion system.],
c. Existing production Based Standards
There is an additional burden for POTWs in implementing.
production based categorical standards. Because many POTWs
recognize the burden, but do not foresee the benefit of
-------
—12--
production based standards, they are resisting implementing
them. The Agency should publish in the Federal Register for
each category with only production based standards, the daily
pounds of pollutants removed from raw waste that results from
the production based regulation and the amount that a concen-
tration based standard would remove. This information should
be presented on a total industry and average plant basis.
Knowing the difference in removal would result in less
resistance by POTWs towards implementing production—based
standards.
d. Future Categorical Standards
Where there is not a significant difference in the amounts
removed, the Agency should consider providing in future
categorical standards an alternative concentration based
standard in addition to the production based standard.
9. Categorical Standard Updating
Promulgated categorical standards and those under development
do not address all wastewater sources or all toxic pollutants
discharged by categorical industrial users. For example, there
are no standards for small facilities in chrome pigment manu-
facturing, porcelain enameling and leather tanning; pharmaceutical
plants are not regulated for volatile toxic organics; landfill
leachate is unregulated; and job shop electroplaters discharging
less than 10,000 gpd are regulated only for cyanide, cadmium and
lead. The Agency should first evaluate the significance of
discharges of toxic pollutants from industrial users not subject
-------
— 13 —
to categorical standards, including research and development
facilities and Federal facilities, and what types of facilities
are involved. The Agency should then evaluate its two primary
control options: development of categorical standards and the
use of local limits, and determine which is appropriate in each
case.
Where control of unregulated industrial subcategories or
pollutants can be accomplished more quickly and etticiently
by increased emphasis by Approval Authorities on the requirement
for POTWs to develop and enforce local limits, EPA should
increase its emphasis on development of water quality standards,
sludge quality and disposal standards, and air emission standards.
However, where national standards are warranted, they should be
developed. The Agency should continue to consider all data
which it has available in developing national standards.
10. Regulation of Small Industrial Users
Initially, there was some concern that small industrial
dischargers (de minimus dischargers) should be exempt from
applicable categorical standards. However, some small
industries discharge highly concentrated toxics and incompat—
ible pollutants which could upset a waste treatment plant
more adversely than high flow, moderately concentrated pollutant
dischargers. PIRT examined this issue and recommends that all
industrial users must comply with their appropriate categorical
standards. Control Authorities have flexibility to deal with
appropriate monitoring for truly insignificant discharges.
-------
—14—
11. Research and Development Facilities and Federal Facilities
Research and Development facilities and federal facilities are
capable of discharging toxic wastes into a POTW. At a minimum,
these facilities would be covered by national Prohibitive Standards,
local prohibitive standards and local limits. It is not always
clear to Control Authorities (EPA, States, POTWs), if these facili-
ties are covered by standards promulgated pursuant to Section 307(b)
& (c) of the CW .
PIRT recommends that EPA expeditiously publish guidance that
federal facilities are regulated by categorical pretreatment
standards and that some categorical pretreatment standards are
applicable to Research and Development facilities. Such guidance
should be circt lated to EPA Regional Offices, States, and..POTWs to
Insure consistent application by Control Mtthorities. In addition,
PIRT recommends the EPA publish in the Federal Register a list
of categorical standards that specifically regulate R&D facilities
and federal facilities.
12. Combined Wastestreaul Formula
The combined wastestrean formula is the method by which
industrial dischargers must calculate their limits when they mix
wasteetreams covered by different standards, combine regulated
and unregulated wastestrealna, or mix process wasteltreams with
noncontact cooling or sanitary wastewaters. For POTWs and the
industrial users, application of this formula is something new.
-------
— 15 —
Guidance documentation is needed very quickly for affected
industrial users and POTWs in applying the Combined Wastestream
Formula to real life situations. Such guidance should include,
but need not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Clarification of definitions of terms (“regulated”,
“unrequlated”, and “dilution”) used in the combined waste
stream formula. For example, the regulation does not explain
that a wastestream subject to a categorical standard is considered
an unregulated wastestream when calculating limits for pollutants
not specified in the standard.
b. Immediate publication of corrections to Appendix D of
the 1981 General Pretreatment Regulations. The current version,
which was incorrect when published in 1981, incorrectly labels
certain wastestreams as dilution streams. This results in confu-
sion, or erroneous, overly stringent reauirements if used in the
combined wastestream formula.
c. Example of methods for combining mass based and
concentration based categorical standards. Currently the regula-
tions specify how to combine concentration based regulations, or
production based regulations but not how to combine both. EPA
should specify how the production rate is to be determined for
combination.
-------
— 16 —
d. Examples of methods for implementing the combined
wastestream formula for total toxic organic (TTO) standards from
different categories. For various categories, TTO is comprised
of different lists of toxic organics. It is not clearly understood
how these limits are to be considered in using the combined
wastestream formula.
e. Information for Control Authorities and industrial users
on how to apply the combined wastestream formula; including specific
emphasis on how to determine appropriate inputs for flow and produc-
tion when these parameters are variable or difficult to measure.
f. Examples of how to utilize the combined wastestream
formula to compare local limits to mass based standards.
g. Evaluation of the utility of applying the “building
block’ approach (49 FR 8121, 3/5/84) as an alternative to the
combined wastestream formula when flow measurements are not
available. The alternative calculation should be documented
in permits, contracts, or other enforceable documents which
should be issued to the user.
[ Separate statement F. Dubrowski, T. Coxe: 1. We stress
that guidance is needed because the formula is new and
poorly understood, not because it is unclear. 2. We do
not agree that EPA should waste resources or disrupt
compliance efforts by exploring alternatives like the
‘building block.’]
-------
—17—
13. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Facilities are sometimes
used to treat and dispose of regulated categorical wastestreams
and other hazardous or toxic waste streams. There is no specific
mention of these type of facilities within the General or
Categorical Pretreatment Standards. CWTs are generally of two
types: those which consistently receive wastewaters from the
same industries and those that receive wastewaters from sources
which vary from day—to—day. PIRT has been informed by the
Office of General Counsel and existing correspondence (Hunt
Chemical) that the Combined Waste Stream Formula (CWSF) is
applicable to CWTs. There may be more efficient and/or thorough
methods of regulating the latter type of CWTs due to the variable
waste loads accepted at these plants and the potential toxic
discharges from these facilities.
a. PIRT recommends that EPA develop a list of the CWTs
in the country and the type of waste loads accepted. The list
may be developed by reviewing existing RCRA Part A applications
or by canvassing the Regions. The data should be used to
determine if alternative regulatory methods are warranted.
b. PIRT recommends that EPA guidance on the CWSF include
examples of its application to CWT facilities and distinguish
between the two general types of CWTs. It may be difficult to
apply the CWSF to CWTs which accept a variety of wastestreams at
different times. Guidance on how to apply the formula would be
helpful.
-------
— 18 —
14. POTW Implementation Guidance
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits has begun
developing pretreatment implementation guidance for POTW5
addressing such areas as: compliance inspection and monitoring
activities, industrial reporting, and enforcement activities.
The Agency should:
a. Develop a comprehensive list ot items that should he
part of such guidance and distribute it to PIRT members for
comments and recommendations on priorities.
b. Issue priority implementation guidance in final form
by mid FY 1985.
C. Allow PIRT members to review the draft guidance.
d. Send the final guidance to Regions, States and POTWs
from Headquarters.
15. Industrial Monitoring Frequency
By regulation, all industrial users subject to a categorical
standard must submit a compliance report to the Control Authority
during the months of June and December, unless required more
frequently by the Control Authority. However, the general and
categorical regulations are silent on how frequently industrial
users should be monitoring their wastewater discharges. The
-------
— 19 —
Control Authority is left with the responsibility of determining
monitoring and/or self—monitoring frequencies that provide a
representative analysis of the industrial discharge.
The Task Force recommends that the Agency provide guidance
to municipalities on the selection of monitoring frequencies
that are representative, cost effective and provide adequate
detection of violations for appropriate enforcement.
[ Separate statement — T. Coxe, F. Dubrowski: EPA should set
minimum monitoring trequencies by rule.]
16. Industrial Wastewater Inspection Training
As pretreatment programs are approved by the Approval
Authorities, there is an increased need for training POTW
personnel in ir?specting industrial users. PIRT is aware
that proposals have been made to the Agency with regard to
this issue.
PIRT recommends that the Agency see that an Industrial
Wastewater Compliance and Monitoring Training Program be developed
and made available for POTWs as expeditiously as possible.
17. Monitoring for Toxic Organics
Many industrial users regulated by total toxic organic
categorical limits are unaware of the requirement in the General
Pretreatment Regulations (S403.12(b)) that baseline monitoring
reports must contain toxic organic monitoring data. PIRT recommends
that the Agency clarify the reporting requirements for these users.
-------
— 20 —
There may he a need to sample for organics beyond the
capabilities normally found in POTWs. Samtdinq for only those
toxics covered by categorical- standards does not ensure complete
protection of the POTW or the environment. Other complex toxics
need to be identified, but without proper equipment, technicians,
and experience, few POTW’s can do so.
Many contract laboratories provide an uncertain resource
in complex toxic identification. The EPA’s auality assurance
program provides an available program of laboratory certif i—
cation. Expansion of this program could assist POTWs in
identifying complex toxics. Certified laboratories would
be able to analyze reliably complex toxics.
PIRT recommends that the EPA expand the quality assurance
program to include certification of private laboratories.
18. Toxicant Controls
PIRT considered the general issue of toxicant controls and
believes that such controls require implementation through several
mechanisms:
a. local limits developed by POTWs as part of their
pretreatment program;
b. Specific effluent limitations included in POTW NPDES permits:
c. A program for biomonitoring POTW effluents to identify
instances of toxicity and for developing enforceable limits; and
-------
— 21 —
d. Implementation of categorical standards, sludge standards,
and national prohibitive discharge standards.
Indirect regulation of industrial users may be established
by incorporating effluent limits in the POTW’s NPDES permit so
as to require the POTW to limit industrial discharges.
PIRT recognized that the institution of local limits,
national standards or permit controls will not fully address
the toxicant issue absent the further requirement that POTWs
biomonitor their effluents for toxic effects. PIRT believes
that the various methodologies and techniques known as
biomonitoring can be useful in identifying potential toxicant
problems. PIRT recognizes that these techniques are difficult
to interpret, require specialized equipment and personnel,
and raise questions about funding, monitoring frequencies ar’d
EPA assistance. However, PIRT supports the development of
various biomonitoring regimes by POTWs, States and/or EPA,
where appropriate.
19. Pretreatment Newsletter
A pretreatment newsletter should be published and sent to
the Control Authorities. The newsletter could be based on
the Guide to Guidelines (an Effluent Guidelines Division
newsletter which was published twice) format and be published
once per quarter or at least semiannually. The newsletter
-------
—22—
should focus on the latest activities in guidelines, seminars
and workshops, and other publications pertaining to pretreat-
ment and regulatory issues.
20. Removal Credits
PIRT recommends that EPA provide guidance and work with
POTWs, States, and others, where removal credit authority
is desired by the POTW, to place in operation removal credit
systems which meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act. PIRT
appreciated the opportunity afforded by EPA to review the
early draft of the “Guidance Manual for Preparation and Review
of Removal Credit Applications”. We submit for EPA’S considera-
tion, the following observations and recommendations which we
believe will improve the usefulness of the manual. These do
not include all the points raised by members of PIRT. Individual
PIRT members have submitted comments separately for Agency
cons iderat ion.
[ Separate statement — F. Dubrowski, T. Coxe: The 1984 removal
credit rules are entirely too lax because, among other things,
they do not require POTWs to attain (or maintain) the same
consistent removal as direct dischargers subject to BAT limits,
do not contain adequate safeguards against sludge contamination,
inappropriately allow POTWs to rely on treatability studies,
ignore combined sewer overflows, and do not contain adequate
reporting and enforcement provisions. NRDC has therefore
challenged the rules in court.)
-------
— 23 —
a. PIRT recommends that the introduction section be revised
to set the general tone for the manual. It should address at
least the following points:
1) The objective of this guidance is to clarify,
simplify, and guide an applicant in preparing a removal
credit application. The manual should also provide
examples, although not totally inclusive, of the various
demonstrations which need to be included in the application.
The tone should be to give constructive suggestions on
techniques, while still providing cautions, for considera-
tion by the applicant during the application preparation.
In general, the introduction should set the overall tone
that for those applicants who wish to file an application
the manual is intended to aid in its preparation.
2) Industrial users of a POTW must play an important
role in assisting the POTW in preparing the application.
The introduction should point out that references to
these industrial roles will be flagged throughout the
manual where they apply. Also, the manual should note
that it is to the mutual benefit of industrial users and
the POTW to form a cooperative/assistance relationship
both during application preparation and after the removal
credits are granted. Relationships of this type will
help ensure that the environmental and financial needs
are met in a responsible manner.
-------
— 24 —
3) The experience to date with removal credits is with
metals which are “conserved” in the treatment system.
EPA should examine the manual to ensure that any
statement referring to pollutants applies to both metals
and organics and make any appropriate changes to allow
for pollutants which are not conserved in the system.
b. Following are miscellaneous observations and/or recom-
mendations which should be considered in revising the manual:
1) EPA should eliminate inaccurate references to
“increases” or “decreases” in pollutant loadings resulting
from the application of removal credits.
2) The regulations require that POTWS, once granted
removal credits, must sample monthly to demonstrate consistent
removal. This should be made clear in the guidance document
and it should encourage POTWs to report their sampling and
removal rates data to the Approval Authority more frequently
than on an annual basis. The manual should inform POTWs of
their responsibility to continuously evaluate their data to
determine if there is any significant variation in removal
rate and, if so, to take appropriate action to institute
any necessary changes.
-------
— 25 —
3) The regulation requires that the POTW’s NPDES permit
be modified to include the removal credit provisions. The
guidance manual should strongly encourage POTWs to request
that the Approval Authority simultaneously issue for
public notice the draft modified or reissued permit and
the removal credit approval notice. This will ensure
that the permit is revised in a timely manner and that
the conditions under which the removal credits are granted
are appropriately documented and enforced.
4) The manual should be expanded to cite examples of
cases where a pollutant is not detected in the POTW
influent, but is present in one or more of the industrial
sources discharging into the POTW’s sewer system. It may
be generally possible to detect metals in the POTW influent
due to the wide variety of sources that discharge them
into the POTWS system. This may not be true for organics
since there are probably considerably fewer sources.
Therefore, guidance on and examples of the use of treat—
ability studies, transfer of data from similar operations,
etc., should be provided. In addition, suggestions on
continued demonstration of consistent removal after removal
credits are granted should also be included.
5) The following two items may not be clearly understood
by POTWS and industrial users. Both should be clarified
in the guidance document.
-------
— 26 —
a) The adjusted categorical limits are still
end—of—process limits, and the combined wastestream
formula may need to be applied if the facility is
integrated or its process flows are co—mingled with
dilution flows.
b) In certain cases, the POTW’s local limit may
be more stringent than the adjusted categorical limit.
If so, the more restrictive local limit applies.
6) Although the removal credits regulation states that
a POTW applying for a credit must file a certification of
acceptable sludge management practices, it is silent on
other details required for sludge disposal. The Guidance
Manual should explain that the Approval Authority may
request additional information on the sludge disposal
technique as part of the application (i.e., data on
concentrations of pollutants, records on where sludge is
disposed, etc.). In addition, sludge monitoring information
may be obtained through annual reporting or permit require-
ments. The manual should also reference the data compiled
by the Sludge Management Task Force.
7) In January 1977, EPA published a three-volume set of
Federal Guidelines (MCD—43) in accordance with Section 304(g)
of the Clean Water Act. POTW5 and Approval Authorities believe
these guidelines have been valuable in developing local
programs. Since these guidelines (most importantly, the list
-------
— 27 —
of threshold inhibitory pollutant considerations) were
updated in 1981, PIRT recommends that the most current form
of this guidance be published and disseminated to local
agencies, State and federal Approval Authorities.
8) PIRT recommends that the removal credit guidance
document be revised to provide that in reviewing a removal
credits application the Approval Authority evaluate, based
on the available data, whether the granting of removal
credits would have an adverse impact on water quality.
ESeparate statement — T. Coxe: To grant removal credits
based on available data is insufficient in light of the
fact that there is a lack of “available” ambient water
quality data, based on actual testing, for toxics. A
regulatory change which requires a minimum of 2 ambient
water quality tests for toxics obtained over a period of
a year should be seriously considered.]
9) PIRT recommends that the removal credits guidance
document be revised to provide that as part of its applica—
tion for authorization to grant removal credits, a POTW
should demonstrate that its local limits remain adequate.
21. Uniform and Simplified Program Data Handling
Since many delegated State and approved POTW programs are
still in the early stages of development and implementation,
it would be valuable for EPA to provide guidance and tools
to expedite effective data handling in these programs.
-------
— 28 —
PIRT recommends that EPA prepare and provide to delegated
States, POTW’s and EPA Regional Offices guidance on data
handling. This should include software, programs, and
TM how to do it” hand tools so that data handling approaches
could be used on a wide variety of computers or done
manually if a computer was not available. This guidance
and the approaches presented should be coordinated with
any ongoing review of EPA data handling systems.
22. Uniform and Simplified Program Data Reporting
Since many delegated States and approved POTW programs are
still in the early stages of their development and implementation,
EPA should develop a uniform and simplified approach for reporting
State and local program data. This could provide a wealth of
uniform and consistent data that could be used for various
reports and summaries which are needed for program management
on the local, statewide, and national level.
PIRT recommends that EPA develop a uniform data reporting
format for the annual POTW report, to be used by the delegated
States, POTWs, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA Headquarters.
This uniform reporting format should allow for development of
lists of significant users and their compliance status. It
should also allow for comments on such concerns as legal
authority and local limits. This uniform reporting format
will allow EPA to compile and summarize data necessary for
program management and assessment.
-------
— 29 —
23. Industrial Users — Enforceable Limits
PIRT has identified a number of technical issues in the
application of the pretreatment regulations which require
clarification and guidance. Specifically, industrial users
and POTWs have identified the following difficulties in
applying enforceable liu its:
Complex process systems and sewer networks in existing
facilities often make accurate measurement of flow and
pollutant concentration a difficult task.
A lack of understanding of definitions and guidance in
the use of the combined wastestream formula could result
in incorrect use of the tormula.
Therefore, PIRT recommends that:
a. EPA issue guidance to industrial users and POTWs to
assure that flow estimates for the combined wastestream
formula, production rates and other factors used in
applying categorical standards are properly addressed.
b. EPA issue guidance recommending that POTW industrial
user control systems including permits, contracts, orders
or similar means be used to document all assumptions
(e.g., flow estimates and production rates) relied upon
in applying categorical standards to specific industrial
users.
-------
— 30 —
B. ENFORCEMENT
Implementation of the pretreatment program is well behind
the required regulatory schedules. By July 1, 1983, 1530 POTWs
were required to implement programs. As of October 1, 1984, 764
POTWs did not have approved programs. Deadlines for baseline reports
and compliance with categorical standards for certain industries
have either passed or are imminent. For example, electroplaters
were to submit baseline reports and then come into compliance
during the months of April and June of 1984. Large numbers
have not submitted the required reports or will be in violation
of the standards. To get the program implemented the Agency
needs to take firm enforcement action.
1. Enforcement Policy Statement
The Administrator should immediately issue a strong statement
to support enforcement of the National Pretreatment Program and
take enforcement actions to demonstrate the Agency’s resolve.
2. Enforcement against POTW8 without Program Applications
The General Pretreatment Regulations require certain POTWs
to obtain approved programs by July 1, 1983. There are a
total of 1530 POTWs which are required to develop a program.
As of October 1, 1984 only 766 had obtained approval. Action
is needed to correct this situation.
-------
— 31 —
a. EPA should publish quarterly a list of all POTWs
which are required to submit local pretreatment programs and
have not submitted complete program applications as outlined
in §403.9.
b. By August 1, 1984, the Approval Authority (EPA or
delegated State) should have:
1) Determined what type of enforcement action is
appropriate for all POTWs which have not submitted
complete program approval applications as outlined
in §403.9;
2) Initiated that enforcement action.
c. To insure that compliance is achieved as soon as
possible, the Agency should seek to both identify and provide
technical guidance to those POTW5 which have failed to submit
a complete program application.
3. Guidance
EPA should make final and distribute to Regions, States
and POTWs, as expeditiously as possible, pretreatment program
guidance to POTWs for implementation and enforcement of
industrial categorical standards. The Task Force recommends
that EPA review its draft guidance to incorporate enforcement
recommendations contained in this report.
4. Guidance on Enforcement
PIRT recommends that EPA publish enforcement guidance on
assessing penalties or damages when a facility causes inter-
ference or pass through. This guidance should address whether
-------
— 32 —
the facility was in violation of specific local limits or
categorical standards, or should have been aware of the potential
for violation of the prohibition against interference or pass
through.
PIRT also recommends that deadlines for local limits be
dealt with in the enforcement guidance.
5. Development and Submission of NPDES State Pretreatment
Program
Under the current §403.10(b) any NPDES State with a permit
program approved prior to December 27, 1977 is required to
submit a State Pretreatment Program for approval by
March 27, 1979. If the State must amend or enact a law,
the State Pretreatment Program must be submitted by
March 27, 1980.
In addition, the current §403.10(c) states, “Failure of
a State to seek approval of a State Pretreatment Program as
provided for in paragraph (b) and failure of an approved
State to administer its State Pretreatment Program in
accordance with the requirements of this section consti-
tutes grounds for withdrawal of NPDES program approval under
section 402(c)(3) of the Act.”
Prevailing legal opinion indicates that these two specific
regulatory requirements are necessary to comply with Section 402
of the Clean Water Act and any deletions or significant modif i—
cations would be inconsistent with the Act unless there were
-------
— 33 —
appropriate legislative changes. In addition, the pretreatment
program and the NPDES direct discharge program are closely
related and intertwined, therefore, a State should be able to
operate both programs more efficiently and effectively than
one by the State and one by EPA. It appears that both of
these requirements must be retained in the Section 403.10
regulations from a legal and practical standpoint. If EPA
enforced this requirement, approximately half of the 36 juris-
dictions, that have approved NPDES permit programs, may be
subject to NPDES program revocation proceedings. In the past
EPA has not taken any action to enforce this requirement.
The EPA Administrator should develop approaches that would
encourage additional States to apply for and receive authoriza-
tion to implement pretreatment program responsibilities.
Additional grant funds, detailed technical assistance, and
guidance and encouragement by EPA may help in the development
and approval of additional State pretreatment programs.
a. PIRT recommends that EPA write to all the NPDES approved
States that have not been approved for the pretreatment program
and remind them of the due dates specified in S403.l0(b). The
EPA letter should also include an offer of technical, legal and
programmatic assistance for the development and implementation
of a State pretreatment program. This may encourage or stimulate
these States to advise EPA as to their plans for the assumption
of the pretreatment program delegation.
-------
— 34 —
b. PIRT recommends that within FY 1985 EPA institute revo—
cation proceedings against NPDES States that have failed to make
reasonable progress towards an approvable pretreatment program.
6. Submission of Baseline Reports
Out of approximately 14,000 facilities subject to categorical
pretreatment standards, 10,200 are covered by the Electroplating
regulations. Approximately half of these facilities were required
to submit a baseline report by September 12, 1981, the others by
June 25, 1983. The importance of these reports is that they
provide pollutant data needed to determine whether the facility
is already in compliance; if the industrial user is not in
compliance it must submit a schedule for compliance with its BMR.
Control Authorities should take enforcement action against
industrial users who fail to submit baseline monitoring reports
or progress reports. In addition, EPA should determine how many
industrial users will not meet compliance deadlines for the
categorical standards. EPA should utilize this information in
its budget process to ensure adequate resources for pretreatment
enforcement.
7. Compliance Reports
Similarly, the compliance reports indicate whether the
facility is in compliance with the categorical standards.
Compliance reports are due 90 days after the compliance
deadline. The Agency should pursue submittal of compliance
reports from industrial users affected by categorical standards.
-------
— 35 —
8. Enforcement of Program Requirements
PIRT recommends that EPA take enforcement action against
both noncompliant industrial users and POTWs which have not
enforced the program requirements. The enforcement process
for violations of categorical standards against industrial
users should begin immediately. The Agency should advise
delegated pretreatment States to take similar enforcement
action.
9. Change of Ownership
PIRT believes that EPA should investigate the extent to
which circumvention of pretreatment requirements by changes
in ownership occurs. PIRT has identified instances where
non—complying “,existing sources” are transferred to new
wownersN who then seek further delays in complying with
pretreatment standards. PIRT recommends that changes in
ownership should trigger immediate upgrading of the treat-
ment systems of these facilities to comply with existing
source requirements. Compliance should be achieved before
continuing or restarting a discharge.
10. Submittal of Testing Data for Periodic Compliance
Reports
Section 403.12(e) requires that industrial users subject
to categorical standards submit periodic compliance reports to
the Control Authority. This regulation specifies that the
reports shall include a record of measured or estimated average
-------
— 36 —
and maximum daily flows for the reporting period for the
discharge, but there is disagreement over whether the regula-
tions specifically state that the regulated pollutants must be
measured during each reporting period.
[ Separate statement — M. Van Putten, F. Dubrowski: The regulatory
requirement of periodic compliance reporting by industrial users
sub ject to categorical standards necessarily implies that
regulated pollutants he measured during each reporting period.)
PIRT recommends that EPA clarify in a policy statement that
each periodic compliance report shall at a minimum contain
pollutant testing for the pollutants regulated by categorical
standards which are reasonably expected to be present during
the reporting period, except Total Toxic Organics covered under
an approved toxic organics management plan. Recommended guidance
for sampling frequencies should •be provided in the Pretreatment
Compliance Monitoring for Control Authorities Document prepared
by the U.S. EPA.
-------
— 37 —
C. RESOURCES
s of October 1., 1984, there were 1530 POTWs and approximately
14,000 industrial users subject to categorical pretreatment
standards. Considering the magnitude of the affected population,
this program is roughly equivalent to the NPDES direct discharge
program, except that while pretreatment needs resources to organize
as well as function, pretreatment resources are significantly less
at the national and State level.
1. EPA Regional Offices
EPA Regional Offices are responsible for numerous activities
related to implementing the pretreatment program, including:
a. Assessing POTW and State program applications
b. Reviewing removal credit applications
c. Making categorical determinations
d. Acting as the Control Authority for industrial users
where neither State or POTW programs have been approved
e. Overseeing State and POTW programs.
Currently, the resources for the Regional Offices average
approximately three persons per Region dedicated to pretreat-
ment implementation.
EPA should either obtain additional appropriations or
reallocate resources to dedicate at the Regional Offices an
additional 150 person years of effort to the pretreatment
program. This item is critical for fiscal years 1985 and
-------
— 38 —
1986. PIRT has developed this estimate ot need after its review
of work remaining to be done for program approval and oversight.
Resources for pretreatment should be clearly integrated
into the EPA budget and allocated according to the different
work loads identified in each Region.
2. Processing Removal Credit Applications
As of October 1, 1984, approximately twenty—nine removal
credit applications had been submitted. However, most POTWs
do not have approved programs, have not been actively pursuing
implementation of the program, or may have been waiting for
the Agency’s amendment to the removal credit regulations. As
pretreatment requirements are implemented, many more POTWs
could apply for credits.
EPA should dedicate adequate resources to ensure that
removal credit applications are processed effectively and promptly.
3. State Programs
Out of 56 jurisdictions eligible for delegation of pretreatment
program authority, 37 have approved National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) authority. These NPDES approved States
were required to obtain approved State pretreatment programs by
either March 27, 1979 or 1980. To date, only 21 states have
obtained approval.
-------
— 39 —
The cost of State pretreatment programs range from $50,000
to $800,000 per year, depending on the extent of industrializa-
tion, the capabilities and responsiveness of the POTWs, and the
State program approach. EPA should substantially increase the
funding available to States for pretreatment using SS1O6,
205(g), and 205(j) monies, which currently provide negligible
funding for State pretreatment programs. The States should be
encouraged to use a portion of their S 05(g) funding to cover
the costs of implementing an approved pretreatment program,
provided the State has Construction Grants Program delegation
and NPDES permit program delegation. This should serve as an
incentive to State program development and implementation,
especially during the critical years FY 1985 and FY 1986.
EPA should require States receiving funds for pretreatment
to make specific commitments on the use of the funds, and
should hold States accountable for those commitments.
PIRT also recommends that EPA develop an oversight workplan
which provides for routine oversight of State pretreatment (and
NPDES) programs and which estimates the resource required to
fulfill this responsibility.
4. POTW Programs
a. In the Interim Report, PIRT recommended that EPA make
available federal funds for a one-time 50—50 matching grant
of up to $2,500 per mad of discharge to POTW5 for necessary
capital investments for pretreatment implementation. PIRT
-------
— 40 —
has reviewed the Agency’s assessment of this issue and has
determined that continuation of this recommendation would
prove fruitless. Consequently, PIRT recognizes the following
problems with funding local pretreatment programs:
1) Funds for pretreatment programs are available only
if a facility is in a Step III Grant that can be amended.
2) In addition, seldom is a grant solely for Pretreatment
Implementation equipment within the fundable portion of a
State’s project priority list.
3) Some States, one for sure, have stated that a grant
for pretreatment implementation equipment must stand alone
as a sePaçate arant and will not allow an amendment to an
ongoina Step III.
4) The Agency response of June 11, 1984 to PIRT’s
Interim Report under C4(d) states that using a “set—aside”
provision is of concern. They also state that another
set—aside may cause problems in wastewater treatment works
funding.
b. PIRT has also found that the Agency published a “Municipal
Pretreatment Program Guidance Package” on September 26, 1980
which is presently not being utilized.
PIRT recognizes the problems associated with the proposed
50/50 matching grant issue and wishes to change its recommenda-
tion. PIRT also feels that since local municipalities are
-------
— 41 —
required to enforce Federal or State pretreatment program regula-
tions, a greater number of POTWs would implement the program
with financial assistance.
Based on the above PIRT recommends that:
1) The Agency update the September 23, 1980 “Municipal
Pretreatment Program Guidance Package” (MPPGP) with the
assistance of PIRT, and;
2) The Agency review the Construction Grant Regulations
and make appropriate changes to include Pretreatment Imple-
mentation Equipment funding in such a way that funds would
be made available to all “Approved Pretreatment Programs”;
3) The Agency include in the “set—aside” provision for
State allotments in FY 86 and 87 amounts that would fund
applicable equipment identified in an updated MPPGP; and
4) The Agency investigate other potential sources of
financial assistance for POTW’s to implement pretreatment
programs.
5. EPA Headquarters
EPA should budget for sufficient personnel to perform its
pretreatment oversight functions effectively, and to provide
adequate guidance and policy statements on pretreatment
implementation.
EPA should commit additional resources in order to accelerate
the promulgation of sludge management regulations as soon as
possible.
-------
— 42 —
D. ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS
EPA should spell out the roles of the respective government
units responsible tor pretreatment program implementation as
follows:
Primary authority tor program implementation and enforcement
shall be the responsibility ot the local agency. The EPA and/or
the delegated State shall retain overview responsibility for
ensuring proper program implementation and enforcement. In the
event of improper program operation or noncompliance with
pretreatment requirements, EPA and/or the delegated State shall
ensure compi iance.
1. EPA Oversight of State and POTW Pretreatment Programs
The Clean Water Act provides that EPA can delegate the basic
responsibilities for the national pretreatment program to State
and local governments (POTW’s) meeting specified requirements
and with programs that have been approved by EPA. To make this
delegated program approach work ettectively, there must be a
true partnership with mutual trust and understanding. Past
experiences have shown that the partnership relationship is
enhanced by clearly spelling out in advance EPA’S oversight
activities.
EPA has a legal responsibility to directly evaluate and
oversee national pretreatment program implementation by
delegated State programs and, indirectly, by POTW’s where the
program has been delegated to the States. By the same token,
-------
— 43 —
the delegated States have a responsibility to evaluate and
oversee pretreatment program implementation by the POTWs.
Where the program has not been delegated to the State, EPA has
the responsibility of approving the POTW’s pretreatment program
and providing the necessary program evaluation and oversight.
A defined and consistent oversight approach is needed to assure
the achievement of the national proaram goals and objectives,
ensure adherence to Federal and State requirements, and to
maintain national consistency.
One essential element of an oversight policy is a clear
definition and understanding of what is to be done, when, and by
whom. In some cases with the NPDES permit program, a negotiated
oversight aqreement between the EPA Regional Office and a
delegated State program has been used very effectively. This
approach could be used in the pretreatment program provided the
agreement specifies when and how EPA will conduct program
evaluation activities such as: audit of the delegated State
or POTW files, reports, inspection data, enforcement actions
and other items essential to the review and evaluation. EPA
should encourage the delegated State programs to develop
clearly stated procedures and requirements thatwill be used
for oversight of the POTWS.
a. The EPA direct oversight activities and those to be
recommended by EPA to delegated States should include the
following three basic elements:
-------
— 44 —
1) overall Program Management (budget, manpower, data
handling, permits issued, compliance schedules, etc.)
2) compliance monitoring (frequency, details reviewed,
data, follow up, etc.).
3) enforcement (procedures, legal reouirements, results,
follow up).
b. One specific item that must be included in the oversight
agreement is the use of direct Federal and/or State enforcement
actions in areas of POTW responsibilities. Although the Clean
Water Act and many State laws provide authority for direct
Federal and/or State enforcement actions, such authority must
be used with discretion. Direct Federal and/or State enforcement
should be used in those cases where the POTW or the delegated
State has not resolved instances of noncompliance or where the
POTW and/or the delegated State reauests that EPA participate
in a joint enforcement action. The development and implementation
of a partnership with mutual trust and understanding should be
enhanced by negotiated oversight agreements which include
criteria and procedures consistent with EPA’S statutory
responsibilities for how and when direct EPA and/or delegated
State enforcement actions will be taken in the POTW’s area of
responsibility.
-------
— 45 —
PIRT recommends the following:
1) EPA should develop clearly stated procedures and
requirements that will be used for oversight of
delegated State programs and POTWs where the program
has not been delegated to the State program,
including criteria for direct Federal enforcement.
2) EPA should encourage the delegated State proarams to
develop clearly stated procedures and recuirementS that
will be used for oversight of the POTWs, including
criteria for direct State enforcement.
3) The Regions and their delegated pretreatment States
should be,reauired, on an annual basis, to develop
negotiated agreements which describe their respective
pretreatment commitments. The State—EPA aareemerit
process, the §106 planning process, or the §205(g) grant
agreements are suitable tools for this purpose.
2. Levels of Authority
a. EPA
The primary roles of the EPA are:
1) in delegated States, to provide oversight of the
State program and enforcem flt where State action is not
timely or effective;
-------
— 46 —
2) in nondelegated States, to exercise all enforcement
and approval responsibilities, in coordination with
State and local authorities;
3) in all States, to ensure that federal guidanceincludes
specific requirements for enforcement and programmatic
actions (irtc uding specific output commitments), and to
maintain accountability for achieving those commitments;
and
4) to provide the best possible technical guidance
to States, POTWs, and industrial users in order to ensure
high quality programs and effective pollution control.
(Separate statement — G. Kurz, D. Menno: Some PIRT members
have documented. instances of action or interpretations of
program requirements that vary widely between EPA Regions
and States with Approval Authority. These actions diverge
widely from the mainstream thrust of the program and may
have significant costs, no regulatory basis, or may be
vulnerable to political intrusion. Examples are respec-
tively: the requirement on some POTWs to evaluate the
need for and to develop pretreatment standards beyond
EPA’s Priority Pollutants; one state’s use of the 50
plant study to develop pass—through criteria: and the
selection or deirsting by Regional Administrators of
which cities are required to have Pretreatment Programs.
We recommend that coordination among Regions and States
and between EPA offices (like Permits and Enforcement)
take place on the policy level. We recognize that policy
statements require more coordination and take longer to
issue, but we feel that the need to achieve a more uniform
national approach outweighs those hinderances compared to
the easier route of issuing guidance.]
-------
— 47
b. Approval Authority (Delegated States or EPA )
1) The three primary roles of the Approval Authorities
shall be as follows:
a) ensure the development and implementation of
approvable local pretreatment programs;
b) review and, if appropriate, approve removal credit
applications;
c) assure compliance with the law.
i. The Approval Authority shall determine whether
the local program meets all requirements of
the law, including §403.9(b), and whether
the proposed method of implementing pre-
treatment responsibilities is feasible
in liqht of any State law or Federal law
limitations on the particular POTW’s
authority.
ii. The Approval Authority shall take whatever
measures are necessary to assure that each
user subject to categorical standards is
meeting the standards.
2) The Approval Authority should expedite compliance
through a joint effort with the community serviced by
the POTW so long as such efforts are consistent with
Clean Water Act requirements and deadlines and with
EPA or State enforcement actions.
-------
— 48 —
3) For all pollutants, the approved POTW shall have
primary responsibility for determining how the general
pretreatment reauirements of §403.5(a) and (b) are
met as long as the POTW meets its permit. The Approval
Authority shall retain review responsibility.
(Separate statement — M. Van Putten, F. Dubrowski,
and T. Coxe: The Approval Authority has the responsi-
bility for determining whether a POTW must develop
local limits to avoid potential adverse impacts on
water quality. This determination includes an
inquiry into such impacts and cannot merely rely upon
compliance with NPDES permit limitations.]
4) For conventional pollutants, where the POTW fails
to meet its permit because of either inadequate capacity
or improper operation, the Approval Authority should
generally not require POTWs to discriminate against
any category of existing user which is in comnliance
with the general and categorical pretreatment require-
ments and local limits which meet the requirements of
the §403,5 General Pretreatment Standards.
c. POTW
1) The POTW (or the State that is responsible for the
local Pretreatment Program) shall have the following
primary roles:
a) meeting the NPDES permit limits (applicable only
to POTWs);
-------
— 49 —
b) Developing and implementing a pretreatment proaram;
and
c) Assuring compliance by all industrial dischargers
with all pretreatment requirements.
2) In cases of permit noncompliance, the POTW should
expedite compliance through a joint effort with the
community serviced by the POTW so long as such efforts
are consistent with Clean Water Act requirements and
deadlines and EPA or State enforcement actions.
d. EPA Coordinator/Pretreatment Division
The Assistant Administrator for Water needs to pull
together applicable Divisions of the Agency (e.a.,
Effluent Guidelines, Enforcenent, Permits, etc.) In
order to develop a consistent program. Because of
Its size and complexity there is a need for the
Pretreatment Program to have its own high level
coordinator reporting directly to the Assistant
Administrator for Water, Its own identity, and its
own funding; otherwise It may continue to falter
without adequate direction.
The Agency’s assessment of the above recommendation
(which was contained in the Interim Report to the
Administrator), stated that the OWEP Director Is
currently the “manager” of the program and has requested
-------
— 50 —
an FY 85 position to appoint a pretreatment coordinator
•to serve on her staff, and will act immediately upon
approval of the position. The position description
and duties of the coordinator were discussed with PIRT.
PIRT has examined this issue carefully and finds a need
for further improvement. PIRT agrees that the OWEP Director
is and should continue to “manage” the Pretreatment Program,
and as a short term measure, should appoint a Pretreatment
Coordinator to provide review and advice on all activities
pertaining to the Pretreatment Program. This would include
development of regulations, budget, legislation, guidance,
policy, enforcement actions, studies, and other implemen-
tation ac1 ivities.
The following examples illustrate the disparate EPA
activities with respect to pretreatment:
Office of Water — General Pretreatment
Regulations
Categorical Standards
Water Quality Standards
Construction Grants
Office of Solid Waste — Sludge Disposal Require—
men t s
Hazardous Waste Reciuire—
merits
Office of Air & Radiation — POTW Air Emission Studies
Office of Research &
Development — Analytical Test Methods
-------
— 51 —
Office of Enforcement and Enforcement Actions (POTW)
Compliance Monitoring — (Industrial Users)
EPA Regional. Of1 ices — Pretreatment Implementation
However, in view of the pretreatment program’s roi gh
equivalence to the NPDES direct discharge program, and
while an individual would represent a significant aid
to pretreatment coordination, the Task Force recommends
that the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
provide some reorganization to more fully address the
issue. Within OWEP there is an Enforcement Division
and a Permits Division. This is the same structure
that existed before pretreatment became a major program.
There should be a functional unit whose sole responsibility
is pretreatment. This could be accomplished by reorganizing
the two divisions to produce a Permits Division and a
Pretreatment Division with the respective enforcement
activities included. Implicit in the recommendation Is
the assumption that EPA will provide sufficient staff for
a full pretreatmei t division.
PIWI’ believes this issue is most critical and recommends
that the Agency institute the above changes or an equiva-
lent alternative as soon as possible.
-------
— 52 —
3. De1 g ation Issues
PIRT noted during its deliberations that, even though EPA
can delegate primary responsibility for pretreatment program
administration to States or POTWs, it was not entirely clear
to all the members how these delegations affect the following
determinations provided for in the general pretreatment
regulations:
“categorical determinations” (40 CFR 403.6);
“net—gross” decisions with regard to specific discharge
limitations (40 CFR 403.15); and
“sulfide waivers” (40 CFR 425.04).
Consequently, the PIRT reviewed these provisions and formulated
the following recommendations.
a. Categorical Determinations
PIRT recommends that the provision for categorical deter-
minations set forth in 40 CFR 403.6 should remain unchanged.
PIRT bases this recommendation on the following:
1) Initial industrial categorical determinations are
made by the POTW in conducting its user survey in preparation
of its application for the pretreatment program approval
(the POTW may revise and/or correct this classification
if the original classification is erroneous or no longer
applicable);
-------
— 53 —
2) Requests for changes in categorical determinations
can be made to State program directors who can make deter-
minationS [ 40 CFR 403.6(a)(l)1;
3) While State determinations are to be submitted to EPA
for a “final determination”, EPA can waive receipt of these
State determinations thus effectively authorizing States to
make final determinations (40 CFR 403.6(f)(ii)]; and
4) As categorical determinations by EPA or States actually
represent an appeal of the POTW’s classification (or reclassi-
fication) of a facility, it would be inappropriate to delegate
authority under this provision below State level.
PIRT believes that the authority to make categorical
determinations is delegable to the States through operation
of the regulations and by EPA’s willingness to exercise
waivers, in whole or in part, of State determinations.
PIRT recommends that EPA should consider exercising the
waiver as part of the pretreatment delegation process for
each State. PIRT recommends that all final categorical
determinations should be made within 60 days of the industrial
user’s submittal of a complete application to the State or EPA.
-------
— 54 —
b. Net/Gross Determinations
PIRT believes that “net—gross” determinations can and
should be made by the Control Authority, whether EPA,
State or POTW. PIRT bases this recommendation on the
following:
1) Net/gross determinations for direct dischargers are
routinely made by the NPDES permit issuing authority
which is the functional equivalent of the pretreatment
Control Authority;
2) Net/gross determinations for indirect discharges is
an activity that can be delegated to POTWs and States
implementing the pretreatment program, provided that the
EPA develop suitable guidance on making such determinations;
and
3) The regulations appear to require that net/gross
determinations.be made only by the EPA “Enforcement Division
Director”, a position that no longer exists at the Regional
level.
PIRT recommends that the present regulations be revised
to allow pretreatment Control Authorities to make “net/gross”
determinations, and that such determinations should be made
within 60 days of request for such determination.
-------
— 55 —
c. SulfideWaiver Determinations
PIRT noted a difference in interpretation with regard to
sulfide waivers. One interpretation sponsored by the Tanning
industry is that 40 CFR 425.04 delegates full authority to
POTWS to grant sulfide waivers. This interpretation limits
EPA’s authority solely to the act of providing Federal
Register notice that a waiver was granted by a POTW. No role
is provided for States. An alternative interpretation is
that EPA and States (if this authority is delegable) can
review the substance of a POTW decision to grant the waiver.
The basis for this interpretation is that 40 CFR 425.04
requires POTWs to:
S
1) certify to EPA that the waiver meets the requirements
of regulations; and
2) explain how it meets these requirements.
The, requirement for an explanation strongly implies that
EPA should review the POTW’s decision; otherwise, requiring
either an explanation or a justification for the waiver is
useless. This interpretation is supported by the underlying
development document.
Based upon these considerations, PIRT recommends that EPA
reaffirm that EPA can and will review a POTW’s proposal to
grant a sulfide waiver for its substantive conformity with
the regulations. The role of the State (whether approved or
not) needs to be clarified and the State’s views considered.
-------
— 56 —
E. REGULATORY CHANGES
1. §403.3(i) Definition of Interference
In its decision of September 20, 1983, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the definition of
“interference” in §403.3(a) failed to require the showing
of causation mandated by Congress in the Clean Water Act.
The court remanded the entire definition of Interference to
the Administrator. The recommended definition below has
been written to clearly establish the required causation.
In addition, the three criteria illustrating “significant
contribution” to a POTW permit violation have been dropped.
PIRT felt that these criteria are neither inclusive of all
possibilities nor necessarily accurate. The function of a
listing of “significant contributing causes” is one of
guidance. It can best be fulfilled if it is included instead
in a separate guidance document, as previously recommended.
PIRT believes that EPA needs to issue a new definition of
“interference” as soon, as possible. It would be useful in
the development of local limits. PIRT recommends that EPA
propose and promulgate as soon as possible, through rule-
making, the following definition of the term “interference”:
-------
— 57 —
The term “interference” means an inhibition or
disruption of the POTW, its treatment processes or
operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal
which is a cause in whole or in part of a violation
of any requirement of the POTW’S NPDES permit
(including an increase in the magnitude or duration
of a violation) or to the prevention of sewage
sludge use or disposal by the POTW in accordance
with the following statutory provisions and regula—
tions or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent
State or local regulations): Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)
(including title II more conunon].y referred to as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
including State regulations contained in any State
sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D
of the SWDA), the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
2. §403.3(n) Definition of Pass—Through
The Third Circuit held the S403.3(n) definition of “pass—
through” to be invalid since it “was promulgated without the
notice and comment required by the Administrative Procedures
Act.” The definition of “pass through” was remanded to the
Administrator. Although the Court did not rule on the
substance of the definition, “pass through” does require
causation as does “interference”. PIRT feels strongly that
having a current valid definition of “pass through” is extremely
important for the development of local limits. It is recommended
that EPA propose and promulgate, through rulemaking, the following
definition of the term “pass through”:
-------
— 58 —
The term “pass through” means the discharge of pollutants
through the POTW into navigable waters in quantities or
concentrations which are a cause in whole or in part
of a violation of any requirement of the POTW’s
NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude
or duration of a violation).
[ Separate statement — M. Van Putten, T. Coxe: “Inter-
ference” and “Pass Through” should be defined differently
for purposes of determining the need for local limits
and for enforcing these general prohibitions against
industrial users of POTWs. In the latter instance, it
is appropriate to define these terms with respect to the
POTW’s NPDES permit effluent limitations. For determining
the need for local limits, these terms should be defined
more broadly to encompass an evaluatiom of potential
adverse water quality impacts (e.g. use of EPA water
quality criteria documents).)
3. 5403.5 pH Variability
Most direct dischargers have permit limits on pH restricting
the range from 6 to 9. EPA developed excursion language for
direct dischargers in §401.17 based on an EPA technical study.
The EPA study was predicated on looking at the reliability of
control systems designed to meet standards for direct dischargers.
Therefore, a direct application of the study findings may not
be valid for a broader pH range. (5403.5(b)(2)(7) allows a
lower limit of 5 and most ordinances allow a higher limit than
9.) However, PIRT recommends that the concept of S401.17 be
used for indirect dischargers.
a. EPA should conduct a study to determine if there is a
need to develop national standards for control of high pH
discharges as it has for low pH. The study should consider
the effect of pH on the sewers and the POTW’s performance, not
-------
— 59 —
just the limits of pH control systems. The study should take
advantage of the wealth of information already available from
POTWs.
b. PIRT recognizes that industrial users have pH excursions
due to variations in their manufacturing process and/or pH control
facilities, and that the deleterious effect of pH can be related
to the duration of discharge. Because pH is one of the few
parameters that can he measured on a continuous and instantaneous
basis, PIRT recommends that the low pH requirement and, if
appropriate, high PH reauirement, consider the instantaneous
variability as done in the development of 401.17.
c. The same kind of monitoring controls reauired in 401.17
should be considered for indirect dischargers.
The above study on pH requirements and monitoring should
apply to all indirect dischargers.
4. Use of Spent Pickle Liauors for Phosphorus Removal at
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Spent pickle liquors (containing iron chlorides or iron
sulfates) from steel finishing operations are used by many
POTWs in the Great Lakes Region and other areas of the U.S.
for phosphorus removal to meet phosphorus limits contained in
a POTW NPDES permit. Analyses of pickle liquors used by the
cities of Oshkosh, Racine, and the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District, Wisconsin, indicate that pickle liquors
from these iron and steel operations contain high concentrations
-------
— 60 —
of iron with substantially smaller amounts of other metals, the
exception being pickle liquor from a galvanizing operation
which contained extremely high levels of zinc and significant
amounts of cadmium. Spent pickle liauors from other sources
may vary significantly.
Typically, pickle liquors are added at the rate of one
gallon to 10,000 gallons or more of wastewater at the POTW
prior to final solids removal. The iron combines with phos-
phorous to form precipitates, which become part of the POTW
sludge. In most cases, POTW5 are given waste pickle liquor by
industrial users, but in some cases the POTW purchases pickle
liquor from industry. Pickle liauors appear to be subject to
categorical standards, even if used by POTWs for phophoroüs
removal Treating pickle liquor to meet categorical pretreat-
ment standards would eliminate its beneficial use for phosphorous
removal. At the Jones Island Treatment Plant (95 MGD) of the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, a total of 2,900,000
gallons of pickle liquor was used in 1983. Value of product
if replaced by ferric chloride (at $6.10 per hundred weight)
would have been $385,000 in 1983.
-------
— 61 —
EPA has already exempted spent pickle liouor reused by POTWs
holding NPDES permits from the hazardous waste management
regulations (40 CFR Part 261/Vol. 46, No. 173/August 8, 1981,
p. 44973). In making this exemption EPA discussed the beneficial
use of pickle liquor and estimated that 50 million gallons
annually, or roughly 5 percent of the total amount generated
nationally, was being reused in wastewater treatment.
PIRT recommends that POTWS continue to have the option to
use spent pickle liquor as an inexpensive alternative to the
purchase of commercial phosphorus removal chemicals (alum,
ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, etc.) where appropriate.
To exercise this option, the POTW should be required to keep
records of the amounts of pickle liquor used, the supplier,
and have test results indicating the pH and the amounts of
iron and other metals and other chemicals which may be present.
The test results would be used by the POTW to determine proper
amounts to be added for optimum phosphorus removal and to assess
the impacts, if any, of the use of pickle liquor on sludge
disposal, treatment processes or pass through. If the use of
pickle liquor is found to be interfering with sludge disposal,
POTW processes or if it could cause water quality problems in
the receiving water, then the POTW must be regu .red to use
-------
— 62 —
alternative phosphorus removal chemicals. Conditions regulating
the POTW’s use of pickle liquor, including testing and reporting
requirements to assure quality control and proper protection
of POTW processes, sludge quality and pass throuah, should be
included as conditions in the POTW’s NPDES permit.
PIRT recommends that EPA issue a rule setting procedures
for allowing the beneficial use of waste pickle liquors by POTWs
for phosphorus removal, where the POTW can demonstrate that
such use will not result in interference, pass through or
adversely affect sludge disposal.
5. S403.6 Criteria for New Source Determinations
Included in the NPDES regulations, but absent from
pretreatment, are specific criteria for distinguishing between
construction of a new source and modification of an existing
source.
As with a direct discharger, proper classification of an
indirect discharger is important because an existing source
is subject to standards based on Best Available Technology
level treatment, while a new source can be subject to more
stringent standards. This distinction is based on the concept
that a new facility has the opportunity to install the best
and most efficient production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. The new source criteria are intended
to ensure that all sources are properly classified.
-------
63 —
To clarify the pretreatment regulations and to provide more
consistency between the two regulations, this recommendation
would incorporate most of the prooosed NPDES new source
criteria into pretreatment’s “new source” definition. EPA
should examine the problem of replacement facilities. Section
403.6 should be amended by adding a new paragraph (c), and
redesignating the existing paragraph Cc) as (d), existing
paragraph (d) as (e), and existing paragraph (e) as (f):
Criteria for New Source Determination .
1) Except as otherwise provided in an applicable
pretreatment standard for new sources, a source is
a “new source” if it meets the definition of “new
source” in §403.3(k), and
a) It is constructed at a site at which no other
source is located; or
b) It totally replaces the process of produc-
tion equipment that causes the discharge of
pollutants at an existing source; or
c) Its processes are substantially independent
of an existing source at the same site. In deter—
mining whether these processes are substantially
-------
— 64 —
independent, the Control Authority shall consider
such factors as the extent to which the produc-
tion processes of the new facility are or normally
would be independent of the existing plant; and
the extent to which the new facility is engaged
in the same general type of activity as the
existing source.
2) A source meeting the reauirements of paragraph
c)(l)(a), (b), or Cc) of this section is a new source
only if a pretreatment standard for new sources under
s403.3(k) is independently applicable to it. If there
is no such independently applicable standard, the source
is covered by applicable pretreatment standards for existing
diachargers.
3) Construction of a new source as defined under
5403.3(k) has commenced if the owner or operator
has:
a) begun, or caused to begin, as part of a
continuous on—site construction program:
Ci) Any placement, assembly, or installation of
facilities or equipment; or
-------
— 65 —
(ii) Significant site preparation work including
clearing, excavation or removal of existing
building, structures, or facilities which is
necessary for the placement, assembly, or installa-
tion of new source facilities or eauipment; or
b) Entered a binding contractual obligation for the
purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended
to be used in its operation within a reasonable time.
Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated
or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for
feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not
constitute a contractural obligation under this paragraph.
6. S413 Elect oplatiflg Categorical Standards
Currently, the electroplating categorical standards do not
set limits on the discharge of chromium, copper, nickel, or
zinc from existing plants discharging under 10,000 gpd. Some of
these plants, namely captives and all new sources, will be regula-
ted for these metals by the subsequent Metal Finishing Standards.
However, for these four pollutants, existing job shops discharging
less than 10,000 gpd will remain unregulated, except through
local limits. The limited controls on these facilities resulted
from the potential heavy economic impact of the regulations.
Even though these plants discharge relatively low flows, PIRT
feels that the potential magnitude of the environmental problem
caused by them is great enough to require a change.
-------
— 66 —
PIRT recommends that EPA examine its decision in developing
the categorical standards which exempted certain small industrial
users from all categorical requirements, to determine:
a. The effectiveness of control programs established
by local limits; and
b. The need for removing these exemptions once local
program impacts have been assessed.
7. State Rule Making
Under S403.lO(g)(l)(iii), EPA has allowed certain States to
assume pretreatn ent program responsibilities without first
promulgating necessary implementing regulations. This has
resulted in ineffective program implementation; therefore,
PIRT recommends the following:
a. Delete §403.lO(g)(l)(iii). This would require through
S403.lO(g)(l)(i) that applicable State regulations shall
be effective at the time of approval of all future State
Pretreatment Programs.
b. Until S403.lO(g)(l)(iii) can be deleted, EPA should
issue policy guidance to the Regional Offices to
interpret this section very strictly.
-------
— 67 —
c. In those cases where EPA has already given conditional
approval to a State pretreatment program that did not have
the required regulations in effect, the EPA Regional
Offices should give high priority to recuiring that the
State promulgate the necessary State regulations.
8. §403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization
to Revise Pretreatment Standards; Submission for Approval
A workable national pretreatment program reauires that all
parties have strict, yet workable, time limit requirements to
complete their specific obligations. At present, there is no
time limit for the Approval Authority’s determination of the
completeness of pretreatment program and removal credit
applications. This has led to time delays which have been
detrimental to the program as a whole. PIRT proposes to
eliminate this gap through a change in the regulations.
Under subsection §403.9(e), there is no time limit to
trigger the Approval Authority’s duty of notification and
public notice. The Approval Authority should have 60 days
from the date of a POTW pretreatment program or removal
credit application to determine whether the submission meets
the requirements of paragraph (b) and, if appropriate, (d) of
this section. To expedite this change in the interim, PIRT
requests that the Administrator give the Regional Administrator
a 60 day limit to determine the completeness of the submission
for approval.
-------
— 6R —
By providing a 60 day limit for review of completeness,
the total time from submission to approval must be within
approximately 175 days. Considering that the Agency is
allowed only 90 days from submission to approval for
State NPDES program approval (for direct dischargers),
this time limit for pretreatment is definitely reasonable.
9. S403.ll Approval Procedures for POTW Pretreatment Programs
and POTW Revision of Categorical Pretreatment Standards
The requirement in subsection (b) that a public notice be
issued within 5 days after making a determination that a
submission meets applicable requirements should be changed
to 20 work days. In many cases, the Approval Authority’s
procedures do not allow the expeditious processing necessary
to comply with the 5 day limit. A 20 work day limit can
be met more easily and still will provide public notification
soon after the determination has been made.
10. S403.12 Approved Sampling Techniques
Section 403.12(g) requires that sampling shall be performed
in accordance with sampling techniques approved by the Administrator.
EPA should provide guidance on approved sampling techniques.
Additionally, $403.12(b)(5)(iii) specifies that “where feasible
samples must be obtained through the flow—proportional composite
sampling techniques specified in the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard. Where composite sampling is not feasible,
-------
— 69 —
a grab sample is acceptable.” This requirement is misleading in
that categorical Pretreatment Standards do not specify required
sampling techniques. PIRT recommends that S403.12(b)(5)(iii)
be expanded to allow time—proportional sampling where f low—
proportional automatic sampling is not feasible. A time—
proportioned sample is simply a collection of grab samples.
Time—proportional samples, while not a . accurate as f low—
proportioned samples, are more representative of the daily
discharge than the single grab sampling allowed in the existing
language.
11. 5403.12 Self—Monitoring vs. POTW Monitoring
Some POTW5 have indicated that reports submitted by some
industrial users are not reliable, and in fact some users
would prefer that the POTW conduct the monitoring procedures
(with appropriate user charges, as needed). Current Part 403
regulations are not clear on the issue of allowing POTW5 to
use their own surveillance monitoring data in lieu of Baseline
Monitoring Reports [ S403.12(b)1 or self monitoring reports
(S403.12(e)]. The Office of the General Counsel agrees that
the regulations are not clear on this point. PIRT recommends
changes in the language of S403.12 to clearly allow for POTW
monitoring in lieu of self—monitoring.
-------
— 70 —
12. Annual POTW Reports
An annual POTW report is needed as an essential element in
allowing either the EPA or the approved State to oversee
the POTW pretreatment program.
Although an annual POTW report is not called for in current
Part 403 regulations, different formats have been circulated
around the country and many Regions and States are already
requiring a report through NPDES permits.
PIRT recommends that a standardized form for an Annual
POTW report to the Approval Authority be prepared and EPA
propose the outline as an amendment to Part 403. This
would provide some basic uniformity among reports so
that EPA can compile a national profile of the program.
13. S403.15 Net/Gross
A net/gross credit allows the subtraction of the initial
coflcentration level of pollutants in the intake water to the
industrial user from the concentration level in the effluent
of the industrial user. The current regulation requires that
an application for net/gross be made within 60 days of the.
effective date of the applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard. Among the reasons for abolishing this deadline are:
a. Influent water quality can change. Therefore an industrial
user previously not requiring a net/gross modification, might
subsequently need it.
-------
— 71 —
b. An industrial user might have to obtain its irtfluent water
supply from a new source at some point in time after the 60
day limit had passed.
C. A plant might change certain of its processes, so that it
needs net/gross credits, where it formerly had no need thereof.
d. Net/gross determinations involve additional sampling
which is burdensome for industrJ.al users to have to do based
solely on the possibility that sometime in the future they
might need the credit.
e. Treatment technology r ay need to be installed before a
user could satisfy the demonstrations needed to receive a credit.
Therefore PIRT recommends that the deadline for application
for intake pollutant credits be removed and replaced with a
general requirement for “timely submittal.” The Agency apparently
already agreed to withdraw the time limit; the preamble to the
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403, January 28, 1981)
provides:N... several commenters objected to the 60—day deadline
for requesting a net/gross credit, noting that the consolidated
permit regulations do not impose a similar constraint. These
commenters pointed out that in many cases treatment technology
would need to be installed before a user could satisfy the
demonstrations needed to receive a-credit. EPA agrees with
this comment and accordingly has deleted the time limitation
on applying for a net/gross credit.N However, the pretreatment
-------
— 72 —
regulations still have the 60—day limitation. PIRT recommends
that the Agency replace the 60—day time limitation with a
general requirement for a “timely submittal”.
14. S403.15 Net/Gross Determinations
PIRT recommends that the present regulation be revised to
allow pretreatment Control Authorities to make “net/gross”
determinations. Further discussion of this issue was presented
in D 3 on p. 55.
15. S403 Appendices B, C and D Must Be Updated
Appendices B (List of Toxic Pollutants), C (List of
Industrial Categories Subject to Pretreatment Standards)
and D (List of Selected Industrial Categories Exempted
from Regulation) are out of date and should be amended.
Appendix B — List of Toxic Pollutants
The Agency has deleted the following three pollutants
from the toxic pollutant list: Dichiorofluoromethane
(50] and trichiorofluoromethane [ 49), 46 FR 79692 (January 8,
1981); and bis [ chloromethyl] ether [ 17], 46 FR 10723
(February 4, 1981). The list of toxic organics in Appendix B
should reflect these changes.
-------
— 73 —
Appendix C — List of Industrial Categories Subject to
Pretreatment Standards
The Agency should review the following cor rients and
publish an accurate list in the Federal Register.
a. The names of certain categories have changed:
1) “Foundries” is now ‘ Metal Molding and Casting”
2) “Mechanical Products” was combined with “Electroplating
to become “Metal Finishing”
3) “Organic Chemicals Manufacturing” and “Plastics and
Synthetic Materials Manufacturing have been combined to
become “Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers Manufacturing”
4) “Paint and Ink Formulating” were promulgated as two
categories “Paint Formulating” and “Ink Formulating”
5) “Plastics Processing” is now “Plastics Molding and
Forming”
b. Additional categories with specific new source requirements
for pretreatment are not listed:
Fe r t ii i ze r
Ferroalloy
Glass
Asbestos
Paving and Roofing
Carbon Black
-------
— 74 —
c. It appears that some of the following categories do not
have pretreatment standards and therefore should be deleted from
the list:
Adhesives and Sealants
Auto and Other Laundries
Explosives Manufacturing
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Photographic Eauipment and Supplies
Printing and Publishing
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
d. The following category is not listed but is scheduled
for the development of pretreatment standards:
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Appendix D
Certain of the subcategories listed here have not been
exempted under Paragraph 8 of the NRDC v. Costle Consent
Decree. For example, the following listing under Electro-
plating should be totally deleted:
Alkaline Cleaning
Bright Dipping
Chemical Machining
Galvanizing
Immersion Plating
Indite Dipping
Pickling
These operations are wastestreamS which are regulated for
toxic pollutants.
-------
— 75 —
Minority Stater ent
The undersigned municipal and State members of the Task Force
urge the Administrator of EPA to investigate le islative changes
to the Clean Water Act in addition to administrative changes
to enhance implementation of the pretreatment program.
In particular, we feel that an engineered approach local option
should be made available in the Act as an alternative to dependence
on National Categorical Pretreatment Standards. We wholeheartedly
support the national thrust of the pretreatment program to protect
water auality, protect plant operations, and to prevent sludge
contamination. Therefore, such an option should only be available
to those POTW systems that demonstrate the competence and the
will to accompfish all the other program requirements as described
in 40 CFR Part 403. This means that alternative programs will be
approvable if they contain local limits based on sludge contami-
nation, water quality protection, and prevention of interference.
Our actual experience with successful programs that have achieved
the above mentioned goals of the Act, prior to issuance of the
categorical pretreatment standards, has convinced us that the
engineered approach local option (based on locally developed
standards) is more economical for POTW5 and much less of an
administrative burden. This position statement in no way is
meant to detract from the consensus PIPT Final Report and
we urge the Administrator to implement the report recommenda-
tions as soon as possible. (J. Olson, C. Strehi, G. Kurz,
K. Goldstein)
(J.$.GO1N IMENTPRINTINGOFFICE 1985 k61 218 20001
------- |