Association of State and Interstate 

 Water Pollution Control Administrators 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N. W, 2ND FLOOR, • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202-756-0600 • FAX: 202-756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG

December 20, 2007 

SUBJECT: Comments on the USEPA Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

Transmittted

by Email To: OW-Docket@epa.gov

The Association appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Agency’s 2008 effluent 

guideline program plan. In general we are supportive. 

We are pleased to see that dental mercury is included. And, emerging contaminants has become

an ASIWPCA priority for which we need workable national approaches. 

In addition, for the reasons expressed in the attached correspondence with the Office of Science 

and Technology, we recommend that nutrients for centralized waste treatment be included in the 

2008 plan. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Eichmiller 

Executive Director 

Attachment 
 

 

 Association of State and Interstate 

 Water Pollution Control Administrators 

1221 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W, 2ND FLOOR • WASHINGTON, DC 20036 • TEL: 202-756-0600 • FAX: 202-756-0605 • WWW.ASIWPCA.ORG

Mr. Ephraim King, Director November 26, 2007 

Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code: 4301T 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Technology Thresholds for Nutrients 

Dear Mr. King: 

Since the initial passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, water quality 

management has evolved significantly through technological advances in required treatment 

levels, the implementation of water quality based effluent limits and the widespread application 

of disinfection technology to point sources. By almost every measure, surface waters are closer 

than ever before to fully achieving the fishable, swimmable goals espoused by the Act. Much 

work lies ahead, however, if similar gains are to be made in the next 35 years as States struggle 

with the impacts of pollutants like nutrients, bacteria and turbidity. It is becoming clear that 

States must now begin moving out of the traditional paradigms to focus on these challenges. 

The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA)

agrees with USEPA that the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus criteria on treatment plant and

best management practice performances must be addressed as States move toward adopting 

water quality standards for nutrients. Therefore, ASIWPCA would like to encourage the USEPA

to research the concept of “best available technology” or “reasonable treatment technologies” as 

a first step towards controlling these more universal pollutants (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus, 

bacteria, sedimentation or turbidity). Going the water quality standards route -- state-by-state, 

permit by permit -- would be more difficult, lengthier and will result in less consistent controls 

than setting federal technology-based standards. 

One of the foundational water quality management tools is the application of the more stringent

of either treatment technology (e.g., BAT, BCT level) restrictions; or water quality-based 

effluent limitations. It is vitally important that as the scientific knowledge about pollutants such 

as nitrogen and phosphorus evolves, the threshold of what is technologically achievable in terms 

of pollutant removal also evolves. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. For 

example, many ASIWPCA member States continue to hear that “1 mg/L is about as good as 

point sources can do to remove phosphorous.” However, a recent review of the currently 

available technology indicates that levels as low as 0.25-0.50 mg/L of phosphorus are being 

achieved in many effluent streams. Thresholds for treatment must be explored, not just for 
phosphorous, but for nitrogen, solids/sediment, pathogens and other substances for which 

traditional approaches (e.g., dose/response) are inadequate. 

We are aware of the potential costs that imposing additional waste control technologies will have 

on both industries and municipalities. More than 20 years ago, the requirement of secondary 

treatment levels for all sanitary effluent generated considerable discussions about the necessity, 

practicality, and cost. However, at this point States would accept little argument against the 

application of secondary (or better) treatment levels to dischargers as a reasonable strategy to 

control wastewater pollution. The consistent application of technology-driven wastewater 

management has a proven track record in terms of improving the quality of effluent discharges. 

USEPA and States should also be able to demonstrate that the costs of further advanced and/or

additional treatment over time will be offset by healthier ecosystems and citizens, decreased

treatment costs to public water supplies, and cleaner water. Many of our member States’ 

regulation promulgation procedures require a cost benefit analysis and impact statement 

(conducted at the State level) be conducted before a rule can be proposed for adoption into their 

regulations. Ideally, the economics of effective pollution control also support achievability. 

A treatment technology-based approach transcends “upstream-downstream” issues and can 

provide a broader framework for abatement of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in waters such 

as the Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay. Using this approach can also help States provide

consistency between programs for interstate waters. 

The ASIWPCA membership strongly believes that a State and Federal partnership is vital to the 

success of this project. These issues have been discussed informally with members of your staff

during the recent months, and ASIWPCA welcomes the opportunity to discuss them with you in 

more detail. 

Thank you for your leadership in water quality management. ASIWPCA looks forward to 

working with you and your staff over the next several months to develop realistic technological 

control thresholds of nitrogen and phosphorus and similar pollutants for both industries and 

municipalities. 

Sincerely, 

Derek Smithee 

Co-Chair 

ASIWPCA Standards, Assessments and Monitoring Task Force 

Cc: Benjamin Grumbles 

 Michael Shapiro 

 ASIWPCA Membership