UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

### WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



# MAY 1 8 20;j

OFFICE OF WATER



### To: Regional Division Directors 

# n

From: Linda Boornazian '@Z 

# d5pdr

Director, Water pets Division

Subject: Oversight of SIUs Discharging to POTWs without Approved Pretreatment Programs

States and Regions report that, nationwide, more than 1,300 known categorical industrial users (CIUs) discharge to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) without approved Pretreatment programs.' In addition, States and Regions report the existence of at least 60 non-categorical significant industrial users (sIUS)~ discharging to POTWs without approved programs. In the absence of an approved POTW Pretreatment Program, approved States or EPA Regions serve as the Control Authority for these CIUs and non-categorical SIUs.

In September 2004, EPAYs Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated the oversight of SIUs that discharge to POTWs without approved Pretreatment Programs. The OIG recommended that the Water Permits Division define standards for the oversight of these SIUs by State and Regional Control Authorities. This memorandum identifies these requirements (e.g., regulatory frequency of inspections and sampling, and other activities) and describes the oversight options for State and Regional Control Authorities.



### Regulatory Background The General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.10(f) define the required program elements for an approved State Pretreatment Program. When the EPA Region serves as both the

1 The figure excludes CIUs that discharge to POTWs in one of the five "403.10(e)" States, which have chosen to assume responsibility for implementing POTW Pretreatment Program requirements in lieu of requiring POTWs to establish local Pretreatment Programs.
2 Non-categorical SIUs include SIUs that discharge an average of 

### 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling water, and boiler blow-'down wastewater); contributes a process wastestream which makes up 5 percent of the hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plan; or is designated as a SIU by the Control Authority. However, the Control Authority can determine that non-categorical industrial users that meet this definition are not SIUs if they have no reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW's operation or to violate a pretreatment standard or requirement.

Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov RecycledlRecyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

### Pretreatment Approval Authority and as the C ontrol Authority with respect to SIUs that discharge o POTWs without appr oved local Pretreatment Program s, EPA is obligated to carr t y out the same level of oversight that our regulations require of the States. The regulations (40 CFR 403.10(f)(2)(i)) specify that in the absence of a POTW Pretreatment Program, States wit h approved state Pretreatment Progr ams must have the procedures to carry out Control Authority oversight duties, whi ch are list ed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2):

• Identifying and characterizing all IUs in the jurisdiction;

• Notifying IUs of their obligations under the Pretreatment Program;

• Receiving and reviewing periodic and other reports from IUs;

• Randomly sampling and analyzing IUs, conducting surveillance activities (inspections), and evaluating the need for a slug control plan, inspecting, and sampling each SIU at least annually;

• Investigating and assessing co mpliance with applicable standards and requirements and taking enforcement action as necessa ry to remedy IU noncompliance;

• Complying with public participation requi rements in the enforcement of national pretreatment standards, including annual publ ic notification of IUs which were in Significant Noncompliance with applicable Pretreatment requirements during th e previous 12 months.

IU Responsibilities The General Pretreatment Regulations establish ge neral and specific prohibiti ons that apply to all nondom t es ic users (or IUs), including SIUs, th at introduce pollutants into a POTW. The regulations also include reporti ng and other requirements necessa ry to implement Categori cal Pretreatme nt Standards, which apply to IUs in ce rtain industrial categories (i.e., CI Us). General Pretreatment Regulations addr essing CIUs apply regardless of whether the receiving POTW implem ents an approved local Pretreatment Program (see 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N). In addition, CIUs are required, under 40 CFR 403.12, to submit the following to the Control Authority:

• A Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) followi ng the promulgation of a categor ical standard (40 CFR 403.12(b))

• A Compliance Report (commonly called a “90-Day Compliance Report”) a fter the final compliance date specified in the categorical regulation 3 

### (40 CFR 403.12(b)).

• Periodic reports on compliance containing results of wastewater sampling and certifications for compliance with best ma nagement practices and other provisions.

3 Under 403.12(d), New Sources are required to submit 90-day compliance reports within 90 days from commencement of discharge



### . 2

### These must be submitted at least twice per year (unless reduced to once per year by the Control Authority) (40 CFR 403.12(e)).

• Notices of potential problems, including slug loadings (40 CFR 403.12(f)), of changed discharge (40 CFR 403.12(j) , and of discharges which, if disposed of otherwise, would be considered hazardous waste (40 CFR 403.12(p)).

• Notices regarding an “upset” (40 CFR 403.16).

• Notices regarding anticipated and una nticipated bypasses (40 CFR 403.17).

CIUs are also required to comply with r ecordkeeping requirements (40 CFR 403.12(o)). Regardless of whether they operate under a permit (or other control mechanism) and of specific notification by the EPA or State permitting au thority, all IUs must comply with these pretreatment obligations which are intrin sic to their discharging activities.

Oversight Roles and Strategies, Resources, a nd Opportunities for Program Efficiencies The Control Authority has ultimate responsibilit y for implementing the oversight requirements for IUs; however, the actual role in carrying out these obligations might vary depending on partnerships established between the POTW and the State or Re gional Control Authority.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Regulations facilitate both the identification and ch aracterizing of IUs, by requiring a POTW to report existing IUs through the NPDES application process for its NPDE S Permit (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii)) and to report new IUs through NPDES Permit special conditi ons (40 CFR 122.42(b)). Although the NPDES Permit Regulations at 40 CFR 122.3(c) specifically exclude EPA from issuing NPDES permits to IUs, States often have reserved this authority.

Appendix A summarizes potential approaches for ove rsight of SIUs when the POTW, State, and EPA Region serve as Control Authority. Appendix B outlines strategies that State and Regional Control Authorities can use to carry out th ese ov ersight roles. Appendix C identifies opportunities for improving pretre atment program efficiency as promulgated under the October 2005 Pretreatment Streamlining rule revisions. Fo r both State and EPA Regional Control Authorities, the General Pretreatment Regulatio ns include provisions that might make SIU oversight less burdensome. Appendix D estimat es the number of IUs, by State and EPA Region, as recently reported by Regions for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) purposes.

Conclusion and Action Items Consistent with OIG’s recommendation that EPA address the oversight of these SIUs by State and EPA Regional Control Authorities, I am asking that each Region commit to the implementation strategies referenced in this memorandum. In addition, we are asking you to work with States in your Regions to assess curre nt oversight efforts, to commit to the minimum oversight activities described in this memorandum, and to ensure that the appropriate NPDES and Pretreatment Program staffs collaborate to en sure that the appropriate permit requirements are addressed accordingly. For each approved Pret reatment Program state in your region, please

3

### review the procedures in the st ate approved program to ensure that they meet the terms of the regulations and assess the state’s progress in completing the oversight activities.

If you have any questions, please feel free to co n tact me or Jan Pickre l of my staff at (202) 564-7904.

cc: EPA NPDES Program Managers EPA Regional Pretre atment Coordinators

4Appendix A Local, State, and Federal Roles

Activity Role

POTW Pretreatment Program*

40 CFR 403.8(f) 40 CFR 403.10(e) Approved State as the Control Authority**

40 CFR 403.10(f)(2)(i) EPA Region as Control A the

u thority**

Identify IUs subject to Pretreatment Program

403.8(f)(2)(i) 403.12(b) & (e) POTW Approved State -- information from POTW NPDES application and 03.12(b)) BMR (4 Regional CA --inform from POTW NPD ation ES application and BMR (403.12(b))

Characterize IUs subject to Pretreatment Program

403.8(f)(2)(ii) POTW Approved State (information from POTW NPDES application and inspections) Regional CA (information from POTW NPDES application and inspections)

Notify IUs of obligations

403.8(f)(2)(iii) POTW (thru control mechanism) Approved State (usually thru control mechanism) Regional CA (e.g., thru notification letter)

Receive and review IU reports

403.8(f)(2)(iv) 403.12(e) POTW Approved State -- may share responsibility through partnership with POTW Regional CA State -- may share responsibility with POTW

Sample & inspect

403.8(f)(2)(v) POTW Approved State (either directly or through internal monitoring points required in POTW NPDES permit) Regional CA (either directly or through internal monitoring points required in POTW NPDES permit)

Evaluate S of Slug Disch IUs for control

arges

403.8(f)(2)(vi) POTW Approved State -- may share responsibility through partnership with POTW Regional CA – may share responsibility through partnership with POTW, state

Assess compliance & take enforcement steps to remedy noncomplia nce

403.8(f)(2)(vii) POTW, State, or EPA, depending on compliance issue Approved State or EPA, depending on compliance issue EPA -- dependin compliance issu g on e, may be coordinated with POTW, state

Comply with public participation requirements

403.8(f)(2)(viii) POTW Approved State Regional CA

* POTW Pretreatment Programs are not discussed in this memorandum. This column is provided for comparison.

** In some cases, State or Regional Control Authorities can delegate some of these responsibilities to the POTW through NPDES
p ermit requirements. However, the State or Regional C ontrol Authority retain s ultimate oversight responsibility.



### 5

### Appendix B

Notification Strategies for State and Regi onal Control Authority Oversight Roles

I. Notification Strategies for State Control Authorities

A. States that choose to act as the Control Authority in lieu of requiring POTW Pretreatme nt Programs must issue permits (or other contro l mechanisms) to all SIUs in their State. This responsibility is provided in 40 CFR 403.10(e), which states, “Notwithstanding the provision §403.8(a), 4 

### a State with an approved Pretreatment Program may assume responsibility for implementing the POTW Pretreatment Program re quirements set forth in §403.8(f) in lieu of requiring the POTW to develop a Pretreatment Program.” Fi ve States are recognized as implementing the Pretreatment Program thr ough direct oversight of industrial users (Connecticut, Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska). As noted above, this memorandum does not address implementation of the Pretreatment Program in these five “403.10(e)” States because SIUs in these States were not the focus of the OIG report.

B. An approved State acting as the control authority An approved State acting as the control author ity may issue SIU permits (or other control mechanisms. EPA’s Office of General Council has held that 40 CFR 403.10(f )(1) requires any approved State to have procedures for notifyi ng and taking enforcement action on industrial users that discharge to POTW s without approved Pretreatment Programs, not specifying the means by which the “control” is accomplished. Seve ral States issue State permits to SIUs that discharge to POTWs without appr oved Pretreatment Programs. Where State-issued permits (or similar control mechanisms) are an option, thei r issuance would be an effective means of notifying SIUs of their obligations and of requiring the SIU to take other measures to preven t pass through or interference at the POTW.

In lieu of issuing permits, approved State Pretreatment Programs could notify SIUs of their obligations using information packe ts or letters issued to SIUs. However, these methods may not allow Control Authorities to impose Pretreatment requirements that are not specified in the Categorical guideline or in 40 CF R Part 403, or be fully enforceable. Another downside of using this approach is that information provided in the packet may appear to be a voluntary program (even though CIUs are required to comply with regardless of whether they are covered by a permit).

State Control Authorities must also identify SIUs (e.g., through NPDES permit applications or reporting requirements), receive and review reports, conduct insp ections and sampling, review

4 Section 403.8(a) of the General Pretreatment Regulations indicates States that any POTW (or combination of treatment plants operated by the same authority) with a total design flow greater than 5 million gallons per day (MGD) and with SIUs must estab lish a local Pretreatment Program, unless the NPDES State exercises its option to assume local responsibilities as provided for in 40 CFR 403.10(e).



### 6

### compliance and conduct enforcement activitie s as needed, and meet public education requirements.

II. Notification Strategies for EPA as Regional Control Authorities

The Clean Water Act does not authorize EPA to issue permits to industrial users. In addition, the NPDES Permit Regulations at 40 CFR 122.3(c) specifically exclud e EPA from requiring NPDES permits for IUs. As noted above, however , SIUs are required to comply with general and specific prohibitions, applicable categorical standards, and a pplicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR 403.12 regardless of whether they have permits or other control mechanisms.

SIU obligations can be summarized in an “informa tion packet” or other similar letter from the EPA Regional Control Authority. (This fulfills the Control Aut hority’s responsibility to notify the SIU of its obligations). The information packet or letter should identify applicable Categorical Pretreatment Standa rds and describe the SIUs’ obligations to comply with these Categorical Standards; submit BMRs, “90-Day Compliance Reports ,” and periodic reports; and provide required notifications. (SIU responsibilities are su mmarized on Page 3 of this memorandum.)

Because information packets do not allow C ontrol Authorities to impose pretreatment requirements not required in the categorical gui deline, this oversight strategy may be a less effective means of controlling non-categorical SIUs (e.g., the Regional Control Authority cannot establish and enforce local di scharge limits through an inform ation package). If an EPA Regional Control Authority feels that local limits or other requirements are necessary to prevent the SIU from adversely affecting the POTW’s oper ation or violating a pret reatment standard or requirement, the EPA Region should consider working with the PO TW to establish a Pretreatment Program under 40 CFR Part 403. (In some cases, local authorities may also authority to control discharges from SIUs outside the national Pretreatment Program.)

EPA Regional Control Authorities should coordi nate with the NPDES Permitting Authority to identify SIUs. POTWs must include on their NPDES permit applications the name and address of each SIU, a description of the industrial pr ocesses and principal products and raw materials that affect or contribute to th e SIU’s discharge, and the averag e daily volume of process and nonprocess wastewater discharged. POTWs must also identify whether each SIU is subject to local limits or Categorical Pretreatment Standards (a nd, if so, under which cat egory) and whether the SIU has contributed to problems at the POTW in the past four and one-half years (40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(ii)). In addition, a POTW’s NPDES permit must requi re the POTW to notify the NPDES permitting authority of any new discharge to the POTW that would be subject to Pretreatment Standards and any substantial ch anges in pollutant volume or character being introduced to the POTW (40 CFR 122.42(b)).

When the State, Tribe, or Territory lacks NPDES Program authorit y, EPA Regional Control Authority staff should coordinate with the Re gional permitting staff to ensure that the Pretreatment Program staff is receiving info rmation from POTW NPDES permit applications, that the POTW NPDES permits are properly c onditioned, and that information reported by
7

### POTWs for such NPDES permit conditions is provi ded to Pretreatment Program staff on a timely basis. When EPA Regions serve as Control Au thority for SIUs in NPDES States, EPA Reg ions need to coordinate with the State p ermitting au thorities to ensure timely receipt of this Pretreatment Program information and to ensure that NPDES permits are properly conditio ned.

EPA Regional Control Authorities can use their au thority under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act to request information to a ssess “whether any person is in violation of any such effluent limitation, or other limitation, prohibition or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance.” Such requests, often called “Secti on 308 letters,” are useful too ls to help EPA Regional staff collect information from SI Us or compel SIUs to submit to inspect ions. Section 308 letters are most approp riate as reactive enforcement to ols, not oversight or proactive compliance tools. However, Section 308 letters ma y be useful in conjunction with inf ormation packets.

EPA will share a sample information packet to facilitate Regional implementation of this approach.

8

### Appendix C

Opportunities for Program Efficiencies via Pretreatment Program Streamlining Rule Provisions

For both State and EPA Regional Control Author ities, the General Pretreatment Regulations include provisions that might make SIU oversight less burdensome. Many of these flexibilities were introduced in the Pretreatment Stream lining Rule (70 FR 60134, October 14, 2005).

Designating CIUs as NSCIUs. The Pretreatment Streamlining Rule authorizes a Control Authority to reduce certain of its oversight responsibilities and sampling and inspection requirements ‘‘non-significant Categorical Industr ial User” (40 CFR 403.3( v)(2)). The Control Authority may determine that a CI U is “non significant” if the IU never discharges more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of to tal categorical wastewater (e xcluding sanitary, non-contact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewater, unle ss specifically included in the pretreatment standard). In addition, the IU, prior to Cont rol Authority’s finding, must have consistently complied with all applicable Categorical Pretreatment Standards and requirements, and it mu st never discharge untreated concentrated wast ewater. NSCIUs must submit an annual certification. Control au thorities must review this certificat ion, but other oversight obligation s are significantly reduced. (A NSCIU designatio n does not in any way relieve the affected CIU of the duty to comply with the applicable Categorical Pretreatment Standards and other pretreatment requirements.)

Designating CIUs as “Middle-Tier” CIUs

. An Industrial User may be considered a “Middle Tier” CIU if its discharge of categorical wastewater does not exceed the following:

• 0.01 percent of the design dry weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW, or 5,000 gp d, whichever is smaller.

• 0.01 percent of the design dry weather or ganic treatment capacity of the POTW.

• 0.01 percent of the maximum allowable headworks loading for any pollutant for which approved local limits were developed by a POTW.

The Control Authority may reduce the required pe riodic monitoring report for Middle Tier CIUs from a minimum of twice per year to a mini mum of once per year (if the one sample is representative of discharge conditions during reporting peri od) (40 CFR 403.12(e)(3)). In addition, the Control Authority may reduce inspections to once per year (40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)(C)).

Designating non-categorical SIUs as not significiant. If a State or EPA Regional Control Authority determines that a non-categorical SIU ha s no reasonable potential to adversely affect the POTW’s operation or to violate a pretreat ment standard or requirement, the Control Authority can deem the user as not significant (see 40 CFR 403.3(v )(3)). This provision applies to IUs that are not subject to Categorical Pretreat ment Standards, but that meet the definition of a
9

### SIU because they discharge an average of 25,00 0 ga llons per day or mo re of process wastewater to the POTW or contribute a process wastestrea m th at makes up 5 perc ent of the hydraulic or organic capacity of the PO TW treatment plan.

General permits (applies to State Contro l Authorities, but not EPA Regional Control Authorities). Many approved NPDES States already issu e “general [N PDES] permits” to some of their direct dischargers . General permits are ty pically issued to multi ple facilities within the same category or geographic area that have commo n elements, such as the sam e effluent limits or standards and the same monitoring requireme nts. Issuing a genera l permit for multiple facilities ensures consistency of permit conditions for similar facilities wi thout expending the time and effort necessary to issue an indivi dual permit to each of these facilities.

The Streamlining Rule clarifies that POTWs (o r an approved State operating as the Control Authority in lieu of an approve d POTW) may use general control mechanisms, such as general permits, to regulate the activities of groups of SI Us (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A )). SIUs that wish to seek coverage under a general permit must submit a request for coverage (similar to the Notices of Intent (NOIs) re quired by the NPDES General Perm it Program). The regulations identify the conditions under which facilities can be covered by a ge neral permit. In short, SIUs that are subject to the same concentration-base d standards and best management practices may be included in a general permit. Facilities that are regulated by categorical standards expressed as production-based limits cannot receive coverage under a general per mit. States can therefore write general permit(s) to cover SIUs that discharge to POTWs that do not have approved Pretreatment Programs.

General permits could be less burdensome for a Stat e that has a large number of SIUs subject t o the same effluent guideline, for which the St ate would otherwise have to write individual permits. General permits ensure the direct notifi cation of applicable cate gorical standards to the identified SIUs. However, if the State or EPA Region lacks necessary information on POTW treatment challenges, any need to address site -specific considerations (e.g. local limits, slug control plans) may go unheeded. State Pretreatment regulations may need to be revised to include provisions for general permits. This process may be more burdensome than issuing individual permits to a small number of SIUs.

The workload savings (compared with issuing individual control mechanisms) depends on the number of SIUs. Exact savings are difficult to es timate because there is no historical data for Pretreatment general permit-workload. Initia l assumptions, based on other programs’ general permit experience, are that the burden for genera l permits is approximately equal to the burden for developing individual control mechanisms and that the cost of reviewing SIUs’ requests for coverage (“NOIs”) would be a pproximately one-half hour per us er. Given these assumptions, the difference in burden is shown on Exhibit 1.

10

### Exhibit 1. Possible Savi ngs Resulting from the Issuance of General Permits

Number of SIUs Burden, Assuming idual Control chanisms Annual Permit Issuance

Indiv Me Burden, Assuming G Mechanisms Annual Issuance

eneral Control al Savings Annu

5 0 hrs pe rmits over 5 years) 20 (2 times 5 pe r permit (20 permit over 5

.5 hrs or each of 5

NO 4.5 hrs. per gen. years + f Is over 5 yrs) 15.5 hrs. per r 3.1 hours per SIU) year (o

10 40 (20 hrs per permit times 10 permits over 5 years) 0 rs. per gen. permit over 5 years + .5 hrs for each of 10 Is over 5 yrs) 5 (2 h

NO ar (or 3. hours per SIU) 35 hrs. per ye 5

20 80 (20 hr r permit times 10 permits over 5 years)

s pe 6 (20 hrs. per gen. permit over 5 years + .5 hrs for each of 10 Is over 5 yrs) NO 74 hrs. per year (or 3.7 hours per SIU)

Source : Based on permit develop estimate s in Revision to the Information Collection Request for the National Pretreatment Progra m , September 2005 (OMB No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.12).



### POTW “Mini-Programs.” In this memorandum, the term “pretreatment mi ni-program” is used to refer to any mechanism that delegates trad itional Pretreatment Program responsibilities to a POTW that does not have an approved Pretreat ment Program under 40 CFR 403.10. In all cases, it is assumed that NPDES perm it writers will in corporate mini-program responsibilities into POTWs’ NPDES permits. (Permit requirement s or other legally binding agreements are necessary to ensure that the approved State or EPA Region, ac ting as the official “Control Authority,” has established procedures to carry out t he duties to oversee the SIUs.) In addition to NPDES permit requirements, local jurisdictions mi ght issue local ordinances that authorize the city to implement some or all Pret reatment Program responsibilities.

“Mini-programs” delegate most SIU oversight re sponsibilities to the POTW. For example, in some circum stances NPDES permit authorities can set lim its on internal wastestreams in POTWs’ permits and establish “internal mon itoring points” (see 40 CF R 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(i)). 5 

### The NPDES permit language could requi re the POTW to perform monitoring at various points in its collection sy stem, including points at which SIUs contri bute to the collection system.

Mini-programs have an advantag e over State- or EPA-run SIU oversight programs in that the mini-programs give an act ive role to the POTW , wh ich likely has a better knowledge of the SIU and an understanding of the treatment challe nges facing the POTW. However, the approved State or EPA Region is the ultimate Control Aut hority and must take car eful steps to clarify POTW vs. Control Authority responsibilities as well as SIU compliance responsibilities.

5 Section 122.45(i) o n internal wastes treams states that: “When pe rmit effluent limitations or standards imposed a t the po int of discharg e are impractical or infeasible, effluent li mitat ions or standards for disc harg es of pollutants may be im posed on intern al wa ste streams before mixing with oth er wa ste streams or cooling wa ter st reams.” In tho se instances, the monitoring requir ed by §12.48 shall also be app lied to the internal waste streams. 

### 11

### Appendix D

SIUs Discharging to POTWs without Approved Pretreatment Programs

State Pretreatment Program

thority? Au SIUs in Non-PT POTWs
egorical SIUs (CIUs) (1) Cat Non-Categorical SIUs (2) Total

REGION 1 CT (3) Yes (403.10(e)) MA Yes 13 8 21 ME No 8 13 21 NH No 22 6 28 RI Yes 1 0 1 VT (3) Yes (403.10(e)) Subtotal PT States in R1 14 8 22 Subtotal R1 for Non-PT States 30 19 49 REGION 2 NJ Yes 30 0 30 NY No 41 0 41 PR No 0 0 0 VI No 0 0 0 Subtotal PT States in R2 30 0 30 Subtotal R2 for Non-PT States 41 0 41 REGION 3 DC No 0 0 0 DE No 2 0 2 MD Yes 4 0 4 PA No 43 0 43 VA Yes 10 0 10 WV Yes 11 36 47 Subtotal PT States in R3 25 36 61 Subtotal R3 for Non-PT States 45 0 45 REGION 4 (4)
AL (3) Yes (403.10(e)) FL Yes 0 0 0 GA Yes 26 0 26 KY Yes 0 0 0 MS (3) Yes (403.10(e)) NC Yes 1 0 1 SC Yes 0 0 0 TN Yes 0 0 0 Subtotal PT States in R4 27 0 27 Subtotal R4 for Non-PT States 0 0 0 REGION 5 IL No 78 0 78 IN No 180 0 180 MI Yes 100 0 100 MN Yes 64 0 64 OH Yes 174 0 174 WI Yes 165 0 165 Subtotal PT States in R5 503 0 503 Subtotal R5 for Non-PT States 258 0 258



### 12State Program Authority? Pretreatment SIUs in Non-PT POTWs
Categorical SIUs (CIUs) (1) Non-Categorical SIUs (2) Total

REGION 6 AR Yes 29 0 29 LA Yes 10 0 10 NM No 8 0 8 OK Yes 27 0 27 TX Yes 34 0 34 Subtotal PT States in R6 100 0 100 Subtotal R6 for Non-PT States 8 0 8 REGION 7 IA Yes 57 0 57 KS No 48 0 48 MO Yes 42 0 42 NE (5) Yes (403.10(e)) Subtotal PT States in R7 99 0 99 Subtotal R7 for Non-PT States 48 0 48 REGION 8 CO No 10 0 10 MT No 1 0 1 ND No 9 0 9 SD Yes 20 0 20 UT Yes 0 0 0 WY No 2 0 2 Subtotal PT States in R8 20 0 20 Subtotal R8 for Non-PT States 22 0 22 REGION 9 AS No 0 0 0 AZ Yes 1 0 1 CA Yes 5 0 5 GU No 0 0 0 HI Yes 0 0 0 NV No 0 0 0 Subtotal PT States in R9 6 0 6 Subtotal R9 for Non-PT States 0 0 0 REGION 10 (5)
AK No 1 0 1 ID No 3 0 3 OR Yes 0 0 WA Yes 35 0 35 Subtotal PT States in R10 35 0 35 Subtotal R10 for Non-PT States 4 0 4

Subtotal, State CAs 859 44 903 Subtotal, EPA Regional CAs 456 19 475

GRAND TOTAL 1,315 63 1,378



### 13

### Appendix D (continued)

Notes: 1. CIU data are the GPRA June 2006 data (PAM 63b), unless otherwise noted. 2. Non-categorical SIU data are from PCS (February 2003) as adjusted per EPA Regional comments in the Spring of 2003. They were collected for the Pretreatment Program ICR. The numbe r of non-categorical SIUs are assumed to equal the total number of SIUs minus t he number CIUs (as reported in 2003). 3. SIUs in 403.10(e) states are not incl uded in this analysis because SIUs in these States were not the focus of the OIG report. 4. CIU data for Region 4 are from the GPRA January 2006 data (PAM 63b). State-by-state estimates for Region 4 are not available in the June 2006 GPRA data. 

### 5. For Region 10, CIU data for Alaska and Idaho are from the GPRA January 2006 data (PAM 63b). The estimate for Washington reflects the total number of CIUs repor ted in the June 2006 GRPA dat a (39) minus the January 2006 estimates for Idaho and Alaska.



### 14