United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance
Bulletin #10
October 1991
&EPA PRETREATMENT BULLETIN
CONTENTS
Pretreatment Award Winners Announced
Section 519 Report to Congress on Pretreatment
Pretreatment Enforcement Initiative
Slug Control Guidance
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations Final
Regulatory Update
Municipal Pollution Prevention Guidance
Pollution Prevention Guidance & Training
More Enforcement News
Miscellaneous
PRELIM and Local Limits Guidance
Congress Working on Clean Water Act
Facts About Pretreatment
EPA Regional Coordinators
p. 2
P- 3
P- 4
p. 5
p. 6
p. 6
p. 8
P- 9
p.10
p.11
p.12
p.13
p.14
p.15
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
PRETREA TMENT BULLETIN #10
October 1991
( i LCOME TO THE PRETREATMENT BULLE ’
The Pretreatment Bulletin is published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance. It is primarily intended for the professionals who administer
the National Pretreatment Program. Pretreatment refers to the alteration, reduction or elimination of
pollutants prior to or in lieu of their being discharged to municipal wastewater treatment plants (“publicly
owned treatment works” or “POTWs”). The NatiOnal Pretreatment Program is a joint regulatory effort
by EPA, States and municipalities to ensure that industrial and commercial discharges of pollutants to
POTWs do not interfere with P01W operations, impair worker health and safety, pass through to
receiving waters, or contaminate sewage sludge.
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE HEADED BY MIKE COOK
U.S. EPA’s Office of Water was reorganized earlier this year. The Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) is now responsible for oversight of the National Pretreatment
Program. OWEC is the result of the combination of two former offices: the Office cff Water Enforcement
and Permits (OWEP) and the Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC). The reorganization brings
together the two point source offices, which EPA hopes will result in better coordination of regulations,
guidance and grants. OWEC is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the NPDES
permit and Pretreatment programs, storm water, sewage sludge, combined sewer overflows, construc-
tion grants and State Revolving Funds, and municipal assistance and outreach.
Michael Cook is the Director of OWEC. Before being selected to head the new office, Cook was
most recently the Director of the Office of Drinking Water. Jim Elder, the head of OWEP for the last
five years, is now Director of the newly created Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[ RETREATM EN TAWARDS WINNERS
The winners of the 1991 National Pretreatment Program Excellence Awards were announced
at the WPCF Annual Conference in Toronto, Canada, on October 7, 1991. These awards recognize
POTWs with exemplary local pretreatment programs that reduce the risk of pass through of toxic
pollutants and interference with the operations of treatment facilities that may be caused by toxic
pollutants. Through their work With local industry, these POTWs also benefit from approved sludge
quality and reduced risks to the health and safety of treatment plant workers. Forty-one nominations
were received from eight EPA regions in February. An awards review committee consisting of rep-
resentatives from the Water Pollution Control Federation, State offices, and EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff evaluated the applications. The first and second place winners in four size cate-
gories based upon millions of gallons per day (MOD) of flow were:
First Place Second Place
0-2 MGD: Leitchfield Utilities, Leitchfleld, KY City of Havre de Grace, MD
2.01-5 MGD: City of Alpena, MI City Utilities Commission, Corbin, KY
5.01-20 MGD:City of Sunnyvale, CA City of Marion, OH
>20 MGD: City of Harrisburg, PA City of St. Petersburg, FL
All of the winners are to be congratulated for their outstanding pretreatment programs.
2
-------
October 1991 PRETREA TMENT BULLETIN #10
.
1 SECTION 519 PRETREATMENT REPORT 11
DELIVERED TO CONGRESS . iJ
.. ‘ .. C,s ... • .-.
On July 10, 1991, EPA Administrator Reilly signed the Report to Congress on the National
Pretreatment Program . The Report responds to Section 519 of the 1987 Water Quality Act, which
required EPA to examine the program and recommend improvements to Congress.
The Report reaffirms the Federal, State, and local government partnership that is unique to the
National Pretreatment Program. It finds that POTWs have made tremendous progress carrying out
and enforcing national and local pretreatment standards. Many POTWs have achieved significant
reductions in toxic pollutant loadings to their treatment plants, thereby lowering toxic pollutant levels
in their effluents and sludges.
The Report finds, however, that additional work is necessary. Indirect measures of environ-
mental impacts such as case studies, 304(1) data, and modeling exercises to predict exceedances of
water quality critena indicate that POTW discharges may have concentrations of toxic pollutants high
enough to cause impacts on receiving streams and to warrant toxic pollutant limits in NPDES permits.
A key finding of the Report is that EPA, States, and municipalities lack comprehensive data
on POTW effluent quality and impacts on receiving environments. Existing cnteria and regulatory
standards for surface water and sludge are still incomplete and are therefore an inadequate basis of
comparison with effluent or sludge quality for purposes of evaluating environmental impacts and
program effectiveness. One consequence of this problem is that, while up to 90% of pretreatment
POTWs have adopted local limits for common toxic metal pollutants, less than one-third have based
them on site-specific environmental criteria for surface water, sludge, POTW inhibition, or worker
protection.
The Report also documents the variability of toxic pollutant removal rates both from P01W
to P01W and within a POTW over time. This variability indicates a need to examine whether the
removal credits and local limits provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations should require
the consideration of more site-specific data.
As required by Section 519, EPA examined alternative regulatory strategies for improving the
program. The Report recommends the following improvements:
o Continue development of national technology-based discharge standards for industries and
pollutants of concern, incorporating pollution prevention techniques where appropriate.
o Strengthen the controls used by individual POTWs over dischargers of toxic pollutants,
particularly through development of technically-based local limits and increased attention to
non-industrial discharges.
o Continue development of criteria and standards for receiving water and sludge, and limits in
POTWs’ NPDES permits to reflect such development, to help POTWs assess their effects on
receiving environments and provide appropriate site-specific controls on their industrial
dischargers.
Copies of the Report may be purchased for $45.00 from the National Technical Informanon
Service by calling (703) 487-4650 or (800) 336-4700 and asking for document PB91-228-726. A
free 20-page information packet on the Report may be obtained from EPA by calling Felecia Curtis
at (202) 260-9539, and more information on the Report may be obtained by calling Ross Brennan at
(202) 260-6928.
3
-------
PRETREA TMENT BULLETiN #10
October 1991
Under the Clean Water Act, certain pub-
licly owned treatment works (POTWs) are re-
quired to develop and implement pretreatment
programs to control the toxic, hazardous and con-
centrated conventional pollutants that are dis-
charged by industries into public sewers. POTWs
have the primary responsibility for implementing
and enforcing pretreatment standards and require-
ments for their industrial users. While EPA can
and does initiate enforcement actions directly
against industrial users, the success of the National
Pretreatment Program is dependent on POTWs
doing their part by fully implementing and enforc-
ing their pretreatment programs. EPA and States
with approved pretreatment programs are respon-
sible for assuring that POTWs fulfill this obliga-
tion.
Since 90% of the local pretreatment pro-
grams have been approved for at least four years,
EPA believes it is reasonable to hold POTWs
directly accountable for failing to enforce pretreat-
ment standards against industrial users. In addi-
tion to enforcing directly against the POTW, ac-
tion may also be pursued against one or more of the
POTW’s industrial users. Frequently, EPA exer-
cises this option when an industrial user violation
is severe or the industhal user has obtained a large
economic benefit due to its noncompliance, and
where the POTW’s enforcement response has been
ineffective.
In October of 1989, EPA announced a pre-
treatment enforcement initiative against POTWs
failing to administer or enforce ,their approved
local pretreatment programs. At that time, EPA
and five States took action against 61 POTWsin 21
States. On May 1, 1991, EPA announced “Phase
Two” of the initiative. This announcement: (1)
updated the results from the first group of actions,
(2) reported on actions taken since that time, and
(3) announced several new (judicial) enforcement
cases. The second announcement was broader than
the first and included cases taken in 32 States.
Moreover, unlike the first announcement, Phase
Two included actions taken against industrial users
(186) as well as POTWs (69). The actions in Phase
Two bring the total number of pretreatment actions
taken against POTWs to 130 (9% of approved
local programs).
The POTWs in violation were identified
through inspections and audits conducted on site at
each POTW. The most common violation contin-
ues to be the failure of POTWs to undertake local
enforcement. The purpose of this ongoing initia-
tive is to demonstrate that EPA is serious about
POTW obligations to enforce the pretreatment
program requirements.
Penalties totaling over $25,000,000 are
being sougfit or have been obtained from POTWs
and lUs in Phase Two of the Pretreatment Enforce-
ment Initiative. Every case includes the payment
of an administrative, judicial or criminal penalty.
In some cases, the enforcement action seeks pen-
alties for the POTW’s NPDES violations as well.
The largest penalty involving a POTW was a $3
million judgment against the City of San Diego,
CA (for both NPDES and Pretreatment viola-
tions). Some of the other POTWs identified in the
announcement are Biddeford, ME; Woonsocket,
RI; Bergen County, NJ; New York City, NY;
Onondaga County, NY; Allentown, PA; Paducah,
KY; Aiken County, SC; Evansville, IN; Las Cruces,
NM; Muskogee, OK; Des Moines, IA; Burbank,
CA; and the City of Los Angeles, CA.
One of the factors used in calculating an
appropriate penalty is the principle that penalties
should recapture all of the economic benefit or
savings that accrued to a violator, including
POTWs, as a result of its noncompliance. In
addition to economic benefit, a civil penalty in-
cludes some assessment based upon the gravity of
the violations. That is, the more severe the viola-
tion, the larger the “gravity assessment” will be.
Finally, after totalling the dollar amounts yielded
by calculating a violator’s economic benefit and
making a gravity assessment, EPA evaluates the
violator and its particular situation to see whether
any facts exist that justify a reduction (e.g., ability
to pay) or a further increase (e.g., recalcitrance) in
the penalty. Generally, EPA will not agree to a
settlement which does not extract cash penalties in
at least the amount of economic benefit that has
accrued to the violator.
The largest industrial user penalty was a
$3.1 million civil settlement with Pfizer, Inc. Some
of the other industrial users subjected to action
I ( PRETREATMENT ENFORCEMENT INITITIATIvE)j
4
-------
October 1991
PRETREATMENT BULLETIN #10
PHASE TWO OF THE PRETREATMENT
ENFORCEMENT iNITIATIVE
RESULTS IN 255 ACTIONS AGAINST
POTWs AND SIUs
(cont. from pA.) included Chevron, Continental
Can Co., Teledyne Industries, Union Pacific Rail-
road, Land-O-Lakes, Rockwell International,
Menominee Paper Co., G. Heileman Brewing Co.,
Cerro Copper, International Paper Co., Winn Dixie
Stores, Columbo Yogurt Inc., Digital Equipment
Corp., The Mennen Company, Cadillac Pet Foods,
Ben and Jerry’s, General Mills, Stanley Hardware,
Chemtron and Borjohn Optical Technology.
EPA does not consider the size of a POTW
or an industrial user when it determines an enforce-
ment action is necessary. The nature of the viola-
tion and its effect on the environment are of more
paramount concern. The Agency believes that the
law should be observed by all dischargers regard-
less of location or size. Moreover, size alone can
be a misleading indicator. For example, even a
small POTW can have a drastic impact on water
quality if it discharges into a small stream.
The May 1, 1991, announcement was re-
ported by the Wall Street Journal, National Public
Radio and various regional news services. While
EPA anticipates that further pretreatment enforce-
ment actions will be needed in the future, it ac-
knowledges that the majority of POTWs are ad-
ministering solid programs. Nevertheless, nearly
40% of all POTW programs still have at least one
major program deficiency in need of correction.
Of the 255 actions, 110 were brought by 16
States. EPA wishes to recognize and commend
these States’ efforts to ensure the success of the pre-
treatment programs. The States are Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Mary-
land, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia.
( fl UG CONTROL GUIDANCE Th
AVAILABLE FROM EPA }
The Report to Congress on the Discharge
of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treat-
ment Works (known as the Domestic Sewage
Study, or DSS) documented the widespread exis-
tence of slug loadings of toxic pollutants and
hazardous constituents to POTWs from industrial
users. Slug loadings (spills and batch discharges)
present special challenges to POTWs, leading to
problems such as worker illness, actual or threat-
ened explosions, biological upset or inhibition,
toxic fumes, corrosion, and contamination of sludge
and receiving waters. The DSS recommended that
EPA consider expanding pretreatment controls on
these discharges. In September, 1988 EPA made
a preliminary distribution of its Guidance Manual
for Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs .
On July 24, 1990, the Agency promulgated.
amendments to the general pretreatment and
NPDES regulations (55 FR 30082). One of these
amendments, 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v), provides that
POTWs with approved pretreatment programs shall
evaluate, at least once every two years, whether
each significant industrial user needs a plan to
control slug discharges. If a POTW decides that a
slug control plan is needed, the plan must contain,
at a minimum, the following elements:
o Description of discharge practices;
o Description of stored chemicals;
o Procedures for immediately notifying the
POT\V of slug discharges; and
o If necessary, procedures to prevent adverse
impact from accidental spills (inspection,
maintenance, worker training, building of
containment structures or equipment,
emergency response, etc.).
Pursuant to the recent amendments, EPA is
now making a widerdistribution of the slug control
guidance. The guidance provides detailed infor-
mation on how to evaluate industrial users to
determine whether they need slug control plans.
The guidance will be mailed to POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs this Fall. If you
wish to make sure that you get a copy, please write
to the U.S. EPA, Permits Division (EN-336), Slug
Guidance, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460.
S
-------
PRETREA TMENT BULLE17N #10
October 1991
PART 258 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
LANDFILL RULE FINAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE USE AND DISPOSAL
REGULATIONS AND REMOVAL CREDITS.
EPA has completed one of two rulemak-
ings that will regulate the disposal of sewage sludge
and affect the availability of removal credits. On
October 9, 1991, EPA published the Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria final rule (56 FR 50977),
which establishes siting, financial responsibility
and other management practices for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs). The regulation
will be codified at 40 CFR Part 258. The rule
allows publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
to dispose of their sludge in a MS WLF if the sludge
is not a RCRA hazardous waste, is non-liquid and
is disposed of in accordance with the landfill’s
permit. The preamble to the final rule clarifies that
a POTW that sends all of its sewage sludge to a
MSWLF in full compliance with the Part 258
requirements could apply for authority to grant re-
moval credits (under 40 CFR 403.7).
On February 6, 1989, EPA proposed Stan-
dards for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge (54 FR
5746), which are expected to be finalized in Janu-
ary 1992. The regulations would be codified at 40
CFR Part 503. These standards would include
numeric criteria and management practices forcer-
tam pollutants in sludge managed through land ap-
plication, distribution and marketing, sludge-only
landfills, surface disposal, and incineration. Under
the proposed rule, POTWs would be able to apply
for removal credits only if a Part 503 limit was de-
veloped for the pollutant for the use or disposal
option used by the POTW, or if EPA had affirma-
tively determined that the pollutant did not need to
be regulated for the use or disposal option. On No-
vember 9, 1990, EPA issued the National Sewage
Sludge Survey Notice, which proposed alternative
options for allowing removal credits for pollutants
not addressed by the first round of Part 503 regula-
tions.
The preamble to the proposed Part 503 rule
stated that a POTW could seek removal credit
authority for any pollutant that is present in its
sludge in a concentration that is below the limit or
the safe level established by the final Part 503 rule
for the use or disposal practice employed by the
POTW. POTWs should also be aware that local
limits should be re-evaluated to determine whether
changes are needed to assure compliance with the
new sludge regulations.
In the meantime, the Sewage Sludge In-
terim Permitting Strategy (Sept.’89) is being im-
plemented by placing permit conditions for sewage
sludge in POTW NPDES permits as they are reis-
sued. All POTWpermitsmustrequire: (1) compli-
ance with existing State and federal requirements
and with the Part 503 standards, once promulgated,
(2) reopener clauses for Part 503, and (3) notice of
significant change in disposal practices. The strat-
egy also recommends that all POTWs with pre-
treatment programs perform an annual priority pol-
lutant scan of the sewage sludge and more frequent
monitoring of pollutants proposed to be regulated
under Part 503. Permit writers should also be
setting limits for individual pollutants on a case-
by-case basis as necessary to protect public health
and the environment.
NPDES FORM 2A FOR
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES.
EPA is working on revisions to the current
municipal NPDES Permit Application. POTWs
currently file for a permit using Standard Form A
or Short Form A (or equivalent application form
for approved States). These forms were developed
in 1973 and, unlike the NPDES forms forotherdis-
chargers, have not yet been revised. The proposed
consolidated new form will be known as “Form
2A.” Form 2A will enable permit wnters to obtain
more pertinent information regarding expected
discharges including the status of local limits,
biomonitoring results, and chemical analysis of
municipal wastewater effluent. The revised form
is intended to simplify the application by consoli-
dating informational requirements from existing
regulations, including the pretreatment and sludge
regulations. EPA hopes to publish a proposal in the
Federal Register in January 1992.
REGULATORY UPDATE) ]
. S4.
6
-------
October 1991
PRETREATMENT BULLETIN #10
I CREGULATORY UPDATE ( CONT.)D}
§304(M) SCHEDULE FOR REVISING AND
PROMULGATING CATEGORICAL
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
§304(m) of the Water Quality Act of 1987
required EPA to publish a biennial plan for prom-
ulgating national standards for direct and indirect
dischargers. EPA’s first plan, published on January
2, 1990, announced its intent to promulgate pre-
treatment standards for the pesticide chemicals-
manufacturing, pesticide chemicals-formulating!
packaging, waste treatment - phase I, and machin-
ery manufacturing and rebuilding categories. EPA
plans to revise the current pretreatment standards
for organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers,
pharmaceutical manufacturing, and pulp, paper
and paperboard. EPA intends to promulgate all of
these rules by 1996.
On April 23, 1991, the U.S. District Court
forthe Disthct of Columbia found EPA’s schedule
for promulgating pretreatment standards and efflu-
ent guidelines inadequate. The Court held that
EPA has to promulgate standards for any industry
whose discharge is not insubstantial. The Court
will eventually impose a schedule for the develop-
ment of categorical standards. The net effect will
likely be that more facilities will be subject to
national categorical standards sooner than EPA
had initially planned. In the meantime, POTWs
may wish to examine facilities in the above catego-
ries to determine whether they are significant in-
dustrial users and merit regulation as such.
EPA will issue its next plan in 1992. The
plan will likely include a revised list of industries
for which it will develop categorical standards.
Anyone with information on the need to develop
national pretreatment standards for an industry
should submit them at that time.
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990
require EPA to promulgate by November 1995
standards requiring the “maximum reduction
achievable” of hazardous air pollutants from
POTWs. The, criteria for setting limits, which are
in § 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, allow for consid-
eration of cost and non-air quality environmental
impacts. The requirement could lead to limits on
the emission of volatile organic compounds. The
pretreatment program may be the vehicle for pre-
venting their introduction to POTWs.
STORM WATER.
The last issue of the Pretreatment Bulle-
tin described EPA’s November 16, 1990, final
rule, which established the following deadlines for
submitting applications for permits for storm water
discharges:
1. Large municipal: Part 1 - 11118/91;
Part 2- 11/16/92
2. Medium municipal: Part 1 - 05/18/92;
Part 2 - 05/17/93
On March 21, 1991, EPA issued a notice and
proposal that changed the deadlines for storm
water associated with industrial activity:
1. Individual: 11118/91 (,proposed change
to 05/18/92)
2. Group: Part 1 09/30/91 (changed from
03/18/91)
Part 2 05/18/92 (just added as
deadline)
Sewage treatment works that treat more than 1
MGD or which are required to have an approved
pretreatment program are considered sources of
storm water associated with industrial activity and
must submit applications if they have any storm
water discharges. As of October 15, 1991, EPA
had not promulgated a final rule in response to its
March proposal.
7
-------
PRETREA TMENT BULLETiN #10
October 1991
EPA ISSUES MWPP GUIDANCE
EPA and the States have embarked on a co-
operative effort to promote State-based municipal
waterpollution prevention (MWPP)progranis. The
program focuses on maintaining compliance at
POTWs and encourages measures such as toxicity
reductions at the source, resource conservation to
reduce water and energy use, appropriate pricing,
BOD reductions, recycling, and beneficial uses of
sludge. States will have the flexibility to determine
whether and how to implement MWPP programs.
POTWs not only discharge wastewater,
but may contribute to the release of various air
emissions and solid waste streams as a result of
their activities and the activities of their indirect
dischargers. In the last 20 years over $73 billion in
federal, State, and local funds has been invested in
the construction of municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
As the federal role in funding construction
grants ends, prevention is seen as the best means of
ensuring the continued viability of this investment
and reducing the need for substantial new capital.
Under current approaches, EPA estimates that
another $80 billion would be needed over the next
20 years to keep pace with population pressures.
EPA’s March 1991 guidance document on
MWPP programs encourages States to conduct
regular assessments of the operations and physical
capabilities of POTWs; monitor a series of early
warning indicators which can identify emerging
problems before they occur (e.g., effluent flow
versus design flow); hold municipalities account-
able for the implementation of necessary preven-
tive measures; and design both technical assistance
and enforcement mechanisms to help get preven-
tive programs established.
The guidance document also discusses
federal funding sources for State development of
MWPP programs. In addition to existing grant
programs, EPA’s Office of Water and Office of
Pollution Prevention awarded grants to selected
States to provide funding for MWPP pilot pro-
grams and source reduction projects. To obtain a
copy of the guidance call (202) 260-7256.
The preceding article was reprinted from
EPA’s “Pollution Prevention News”. To receive
copies of “Pollution Prevention News”, please
write U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW (PM-222B)
Washington, D.C. 20460.
I i POLLUTION PREVENTION
I __IN_POTWs GRANTS
Five States have been selected for “Pollu-
tion Prevention in POTW” grants for fiscal year ‘91
by EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention. The pur-
pose of these grants is to demonstrate how a mu-
nicipal POTW, through its pretreatment program
and facilities operations, can promote source re-
duction activities among industrial and commer-
cial dischargers. Activities to be funded under
these grants will include such things as:
o conducting energy audits of specific
POTWs,
o providing technical assistance to industry,
o establishing water conservation programs,
and
o targeting of specific industries and pollut-
ants for source reduction programs.
These demonstration projects will assist in the
development of a national “Pollution Prevention in
POTWs” program plan. For further information
contact Deborah Hanlon or Lena Hann in EPA’s
Office of Pollution Prevention at (202) 260-2726.
B
-------
October 1991
PRETREA TMENT BULLETiN #10
• / •s \\ \ s C <
L.. >•- ‘•
I POLLUTION PREVENTION
L TRAINING AND GUIDANCE
Over the past two years, EPA has made
promotion of pollution prevention one of its top
priorities. Pollution prevention is multimedia in
scope and is designed to augment end-of-pipe
controls for a single medium. On February 7, 1991,
EPA’s Administrator, William Reilly, announced
the issuance of EPA’s National Pollution Preven-
tion Strategy. The Strategy provides guidance and
direction for efforts to incorporate pollution pre-
vention into EPA’s existing regulatory and non-
regulatory programs. The strategy emphasizes
source reduction as the Agency’s primary focus.
Source reduction is defined as any practice that
reduces the amount of any hazardous substance,
pollutant or contaminant that enters any waste
stream or is released into the environment; source
reduction occurs prior to, and eliminates the need
for, recycling, treatment or disposal.
In order to promote and institutionalize
pollution prevention into the pretreatment pro-
gram, the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (OWEC) will be developing training
and guidance for pretreatment coordinators and
POTWs. OWEC has already developed training
for NPDES permit writers. A two-hour pollution
prevention training module, which was first pre-
sented at the NPDES Basic Permits Writers Course
in December 1990, is now part of the regular
curriculum. In June, a pilot 1-day workshop on
pollution prevention for NPDES permit writers
was held in Chicago. The goals of the workshop
were to familiarize permit writers with pollution
prevention opportunities; to show how their permit
decisions can affect other media; and to provide
guidance on how to communicate pollution pre-
vention to industrial managers in a positive man-
ner.
The guidance and training being developed
for pretreatment coordinators and POTWs will
build on what has been done in the NPDES training
course. These include the following:
o A pollution prevention training module for
inclusion in pretreatment workshops to
explain what pollution prevention is and
how it would work in the context of the
pretreatment program.
o A one-day training session for POTWs to
conduct pollution prevention audits and
educate industrial users about pollution
prevention opportunities.
o A short brochure on pollution prevention
for industry, POTWs and the general pub-
lic.
In order to stimulate technology transfer
among the regulated community, and to encourage
inclustrjaj users and POTWs to conduct additional
pollution prevention activities, OWEC will re-
search current pollution prevention technologies
that reduce the concentration of pollutants in waste-
water. The case studies developed will be used in
the training sessions for NPDES Permit Writers,
Pretreatment Coordinators and POTWs to provide
examples of pollution prevention in action. These
case studies will be added to the Pollution Preven-
tion Information Clearinghouse (PPIC), a database
that contains pollution prevention information re-
lating to specific industrial types. Look in future
editions of the Pretreatment Bulletin for informa-
tion about training and pollution prevention tech-
nologies available through PPIC.
BULLETIN IDEAS
Are there articles you would like
to see written or would like to
contribute? Please contact Louis
Eby at the address on page 11 or
at (202) 260-6053.
9
-------
PRETREATMENT BULLETiN #10
October 1991
i ir
EPA INiTIATES NATIONAL ASSESS-
MENT OF OCPSF COMPLIANCE
The deadline for compliance with cate-
gorical standards for the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) indus-
try was November 5, 1990. The deadline for
90-day final compliance reports was February
4, 1991. EPA and approved pretreatment
States are in the process of examining POTW
programs that regulate one or more OCPSF fa-
cilities to determine whether these facilities
are in compliance and whether the POT \’ has
implemented and enforced these requirements
in a timely manner. Preliminary results of this
assessment indicate that OCPSF noncompli-
ance is greater than expected and that some
POTWs have yet to incorporate the OCPSF
discharge limits into industrial user control
mechanisms or take enforcement to address
noncompliance. POTWs and OCPSF facili-
ties may be subject to enforcement action for
failure to comply with these guidelines in a
timely manner.
EPA EXPLAINS POLICY ON
CALCULATING SIGNIFICANT
NONCOMPLIANCE
On September 9, 1991, Mike Cook, Di-
rector of EPA’s Office of Wastewater Enforce-
ment and Compliance, issued a memorandum
explaining the proper methodology for deter-
mining which industrial users meet the regula-
tory definition of significant noncompliance
(SNC). The definition, which has existed as
guidance since 1986, was promulgated as part of
the July 24, 1990, amendments to the General
Pretreatment Regulations (commonly referred to
as the Domestic Sewage Study regulations) (55
E L Reg . 30082).
The memo clarifies that, like the SNC
definition used in the NPDES program, incidents
of pretreatment SNC involving discharge viola-
tions are to be calculated on the basis of “rolling
quarters”. SNC must be determined at the end of
each quarter based upon data for the previous six
months. Fixed quarters are to be established by
each POTW to correspond to its reporting year
(e.g., March 31, June 30, September 30, and
December 31). The frequency of POTW report-
ing continues to be left to the discretion of the
Approval Authority, as set out in P01W NPDES
permits, but is to be in no case less than once per
year.
The memo further clarifies that an JU
continues to be in SNC even after it has been
issued a compliance schedule through an en-
forceable order. The I1J is in SNC for the term
of the schedule (unless the facility returns to
compliance) and must be published in the news-
paper per 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2) (vii) for each year
that it is in SNC.
PCME Version 3.0: A Call for Beta Testers
EPA Headquarters is currently revising
the Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement (PCME) software. The PCME
software assists POTWs in tracking all compli-
ance and enforcement activities related to the
pretreatment program. A preliminary version of
PCME 3.0 is expected to be available soon, and
EPA is seeking users of PCME 2.05 to test the
revised system and work with the developers to
address problems which arise in testing the
program. All interested users are encouraged to
respond to this request; however, the ideal beta-
tester would have the following characteristics:
o regulates approximately 20 in-
dustrial users;
o implements an Enforcement
Response Plan (ERP); and in the
preceding 18 ‘months, has pur-
sued at least three different types
of enforcement actions (e.g.,
NOV, AO, judicial action);
o isfamiliarwithdBASEfflor IV;
o works with a Local Area Net-
work (LAN) (optional); and
o maintains a sense of humor.
Anyone who meets most of the above conditions
and is able to commit some time during the
coming months should contact Lee Okster at
(202) 260-8329.
10
-------
OcEober 1991
PRETREATMENT BULLETIN #10
IIIiiiIIi IIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIII II
( LMISCELLA NEO usj j
III!I IIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII
1989 TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
DATA ANNOUNCED
On May 16, 1991, EPA announced the
results of the 1989 Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI), which revealed that 22,650 industrial
facilities released 5.7 billion pounds of toxic
chemicals into the nation’s environment. Under
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986, certain industries that em-
ploy at least 10 workers and use or manufacture
specified quantities of toxic chemicals per year
are required to report any routine or accidental
release of these chemicals to the Agency.
551 million pounds, or 9.65% of the 5.7
billion pounds released, were transferred to
POTWs. This represents an 11% decrease from
1987 TRI data. Fifteen chemicals account for
over 90% of the chemicals transferred. The top
five chemicals transferred to POTWs were:
Amrnonium Sulfate (201 million pounds)
Methanol (109 million pounds)
Sulfuric Acid (43 million pounds)
Ammonia (29 million pounds)
Hydrochloric Acid (28 million pounds)
The major industrial category contribut-
ing to releases to POTWs was the chemical
industry which accounted for approximately 65%
of the chemicals transferred. The paperindustry
accounted for the second largest percentage of
releases (approximately 8%).
TRI data for 1989 are available to the
public through the National Library of Medicine’s
TOXNET system at (301)496-6531. States and
EPA Regional offices should already have ac-
cess to TRI data through EPA’s TRIS system.
EPA will release a national report summarizing
and analyzing the 1989 TRI in the near future. If
you need additional information on TRI, please
call the Information Management Division in
the Office of Toxic Substances at (202) 260-
3928 or the Emergency Planning and Commu-
nity Right-to-Know hotline at 1-800-535-0202.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FEDERATION AD HOC SOURCE
CONTROL COMMIUEE
WPCF has recently formed an Ad Hoc
Source Control Committee which will be deal-
ing with a variety of challenging source control
and pretreatment issues concerning the regula-
tion of small industrial and commercial facili-
ties, reauthorization of he Clean Water Act and
the development of industrial wastewater op-
erator training and certification programs. The
Committee is being drawn from large and small
wastewater treatment agencies, regulators, en-
vironmental consultants and industrial/commer-
cial representatives. The first meeting of the
Committee was held on Monday, October 7,
1991, at the annual WPCF Conference in Toronto.
Questions about the Committee or its activities
should be directed to the Committee’s Chair,
Margie -Nellor, County Sanitation District of
Orange County, CA, at (714) 962-2411.
ADDRESS CHANGES
Any address changes or add!-
tions? In order to be on the
mailing list you must be a POTW,
State or EPA employee.
LOUIS EBY
U.S. EPA
Permits Division (EN-336)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
f..
11
-------
PRETREATMENT BULLE77N #10
October 1991
1 .. 1 4.0 AND GUIDANCE MANUAL
AVAILABLE TO ASSIST LOCAL LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
PRELIM 4.0 is finally here! For several
years, one tool used in calculating local limits has
been theEPAprogramPRELIM. Thelong awaited
upgrade to PRELIM has been completed and is
now available. Over the past several months,
many people have written or called to request a
copy of PRELIM 4.0, and EPA has developed a
mailing list of those persons. EPA has begun
sending PRELIM 4.0 to the approximately 1,200
persons who had requested it. PRELIM 4.0 is still
in an IBM format (sony MAC users, but we
couldn’t do both formats). The program will come
on two double-sided, double-density, floppy disks
with a user’s manual. Although it will run from a
floppy drive, we recommend that, for ease and
speed of operation, it be run from a hard drive. It
requires a minimum of DOS 2.0 and 640k of RAM.
PRELIM 4.0 improves upon previous ver-
sions in numerous ways. It allows the input of in-
formation on an unlimited number of industrial
users; it is more user friendly (it is menu driven)
with a greater ability to edit files and copy facility
profiles; and it is consistent with the Guidance
Manual on the Development and Implementation
of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pre-
treatment Program . December 1987.
Due to a substantial difference in program
design however, data is not electronically transfer-
able between PRELIM 4.0 and any previous ver-
sions of PRELIM.
Supplemental Manual on the Development
and Implementation of
Local Discharge Limitations Under the
Pretreatment Program
EPA has also finalized a document called
the Supplemental Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations ,
May 1991. This two-part manual provides infor-
mation on commercial and domestic sources of
toxic pollutants to POTWs as well as information
on the calculation of the removal of toxic pollut-
ants in POTWs. These are important considera-
tions during local limits development. This man-
ual is intended to supplement the Guidance Man-
ual on the Development and Implementation of
Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreat-
ment Program . December 1987. Distribution of
the Supplemental Manual will occur with the re-
lease of PRELIM 4.0.
The first part of the Supplemental Manual
provides information about pollutant levels that
have been observed in commercial and domestic
wastewaters. Sources presented are hospitals,
automobile radiator shops, car washes, truck clean-
ers, dry cleaners, laundries, septage haulers, landfill
leachate and domestic sources. The data presented
are not intended to serve as a substitute for the
collection of site-specific information. They are
presented to show relative values of pollutant load-
ings, to use in making comparisons and to encour-
age the collection of site-specific data before de-
veloping local limits.
The second part of the Supplemental
Manual expands upon the methodology in the
1987 Local Limits Guidance on the mean and
decile approaches to calculating POTW removal
of toxic pollutants. The mean approach is probably
the most familiar calculation since it represents an
arithmetic average of daily removal values. The
decile approach is a statistical method which al-
lows a POTW to select removal efficiencies, within
certain ranges of certainty. Each of these methods
is defined and illustrated with examples. The Sup-
plemental Manual includes a work sheet approach
to calculating deciles to help simplify the process.
It also discusses the difficulties that may be en-
countered when applying the calculations to ana-
lytical sampling data. The local limits computer
program, PRELIM 4.0, includes the ability to
calculate pollutant removal by a POTW using a
decile method of analysis.
PRELIM 4.0
12
-------
October 1991
PRETREA TMENT BULLETIN #10
I CONGRESS WORKING ON CLEAN WATER ACT
Senate Bill No. 1081, introduced on May
15, 1991, proposes the “Water Pollution Preven-
tion and Control Act of 1991.” The bill is almost
200 pages long and covers many issues. The House
is in the process of drafting its own bill. Congress
is a long way from preparing a final bill and the ul-
timate statute may look veiy different from the
Senate’s proposal. Major elements of the Senate
Bill that pertain to the pretreatment program in-
clude:
a. Categorical pretreatment standards: in addi-
tion to requiring national standards to be based
on best available technology, the bill would
mandate that EPA consider waste reduction and
cross-media impacts when developing standards.
b. Removal credits would be abolished.
c. Control authorities would be required to set
local limits for each IU not subject to a national
guideline and to consider BAT and pollution-
prevention when setting local limits. EPA and
States would be required to set local limits
where they are the Control Authority. EPA
would issue pennits to JUs where EPA is the
Control Authority.
d. Monthly reporting for SIUs, and quarterly re-
porting for other lUs, would be required.
e. The bill would prohibit the discharge of any
hazardous pollutant by an IU unless the pollut-
ant and the source are subject to a categorical
pretreatment standard, on a 304(m) schedule for
a standard, or subject to a local limit that is at
least as stringent as RCRA’s technology-based
limits.
f. Toxic Reduction Action Plans: POTWs serv-
ing over 50,000 people would be required to
identify problem pollutants from domestic and
other unregulated sources and develop a plan to
prevent their discharge (e.g., used oil and haz-
ardous waste recycling programs). Plans would
have to be approved by EPA.
g. Combined Sewer Overflows: the bill would
require submission of schedules for the elimina-
tion of CSOs and interim pretreatment meas-
ures to reduce toxic pollutants.
It cannot be overemphasized that these are just
proposals and that it is quite possible that none of
these provisions will ever be adopted. Anyone
with ideas on the above or other ways to improve
the Pretreatment program should contact their State
or EPA Regional NPDES Director, and theirrepre-
sentatives in Congress.
13
-------
PRETREATMENT BULLETiN #10 October 1991
TSABOUTPRETREATMENT9
o There are 15,000 POTWs in the United States. These POTWs treat 34 billion gallons
per day of domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater.
o 1,542 POTWs are required to develop and implement local pretreatment programs.
1,442 programs have been approved and implemented. These 1,442 programs cover
2,015 individual wastewater treatment plants (note that a pretreatment program may
cover more than one plant.)
o The five so-called “403.10(e) States”, where States rather than local POTWs
implement pretreatment requirements, regulate discharges to an additional 314
POTWs. The five States are Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, Nebraska and
Vermont.
o Those POTWS with approved pretreatment programs and those in 403.10(e) States
receive approximately 80% of the national wastewater flow to POT\Vs.
o Although over 80% of POTWs have imposed local limits on their His, less than one-
third have technically-based local limits (i.e., local limits specifically designed to
prevent pass through and interference.)
o Of the several hundred thousand industrial users of POTWs, approximately 30,000
meet EPA’s definition of “significant industrial user” (SIU), including 11,600
industrial users that are subject to categorical pretreatment standards.
o EPA’s Permit Compliance System indicates that 84% of SIUs have been issued
control mechanisms and 90% of SHJs have been inspected under local programs.
o Over one-half of the Pretreatment POTWs receive a flow of less than five million
gallons per day.
o Under EPA’s 304(1) program, 254 POTWs (171 pretreatment POTWs) are among the
686 facilities identified as contributing toxic pollutants to stream segments not
attaining water quality standards.
o 48% of POTW sludge is beneficially used in land application or distribution and
marketing.
o EPA Regions and States have performed more than 3,600 audits and inspections at
1,328 POTWs in the last five years.
Source: ReDort to Congress on the National Pretreatment Program , EPA (1991).
14
-------
October 1991 PRETREATMENT BULLETIN #10
The following is a list of EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators. POTWs or other interested
parties should first contact their State pretreatment coordinators, If POTWs need further assistance with
program development or implementation questions or problems, please contact the EPA regional office
responsible for your State.
US EPA REGIONAL PRETREATMENT COORDJNATORS
JACK STOECKER LEE BOHME
U.S. EPA, REGION 1 U.S. EPA, REGION 6
J.F.K. FEDERAL BLDG (6W-PT)
(WCM-510) 1445 ROSS AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02203 DALLAS, TX 75202
(617) 565-3554 (214) 655-7175
VIRGINIA WONG PAUL MARSHALL
U.S. EPA, REGION 2 U.s. EPA, REGION 7
JACOB K. JAV1TZ FEDERAL BLDG (WACM)
26 FEDERAL PLAZA 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
ROOM 845 KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
NEWYORK, NY 10278 (913)551-7419
(212) 264-1262
STEVE COPELAND CURT McCORMICK
U.S. EPA REGION 3 U.S. EPA, REGION 8
841 CHESTNUT BLDG ONE DENVER PLACE (8WM-C)
(3WM55) 999 18TH STREET, SUiTE 500
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 DENVER, CO 80202-2405
(215) 597-6280 (303) 293-1592
AL HERNDON KEITH SILVA
U.S. EPA, REGION 4 U.s. EPA, REGION 9
345 COURTLAND STREET, NE 75 HAWThORNE ST.
(FPB-3) (W-5-2)
ATLANTA, GA 30365 SAN FRANCISCO., CA 94105
(404) 347-3973 (415) 744-1910
MATI’ GLUCKMAN ROBERT ROBICHAUD
U.S. EPA, REGION 5 U.S. EPA, REGION 10
230 S. DEARBORN ST. PERMITS BRANCH (M/S 521)
(WQP-TUB-8) 1200 SIXTH AVENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60604 SEATFLE, WA 98101
(312) 886-6089 (206) 442-1448
15
------- |